• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Rife Machines: Discussion--cancer, Lyme, ME/CFS

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
I am afraid that the technical stuff is way above my head.

I do agree with the sentiments expressed and wish that there were trials using the modern machines.

I don't know however, whether that is going to happen soon. I can't imagine many if any people with cancer, would be willing to take part in trials when only a frequency generator is used. It is generally accepted in the Rife communities, that modern day cancer is not the same beast that it was in Raymond Rife's time and they choose a multi-discipline approach to be on the safe side because of this. There is a book coming out soon from a woman who had breast cancer and is now cured and who used a generator. I don't know whether she used anything else. There are so many types of cancer and with various reasons for it, and viral infection seems to be a major factor.

On the two rife forums I frequent, there are success stories, and with enough anecdotal evidence to show that using a generator seems to confirm the results of tests that have been performed so far. And because Raymond Ride cured the 16 people he was presented with 100%, and because the James Bare machine seems to be very like the original, and the machine I use is having success, and some researchers, are working for nothing so that everyone in the world can afford to buy one of the units, I am convinced enough as I do not wish to wait around for trials. I don't have the luxury of doing that at my age. If others want to wait then all well and good if that is what they want.

Cancer is cancer and no different in Royal Raymond Rife's time as it is now.

Of course, Rife had cancer all wrong to start with. It has been written numerous times that Rife 'discovered' the microbe that 'caused' or was involved with cancer.

We know that cancer is actual a complex group of diseases with multiple causes -- from genetics, to radiation, to carcinogens and so on. Some viruses can help to cause cause cancer because they can cause genetic changes in cells to make them more likely to become cancerous (HPV, Hep B and C, EBV to name a few).

As far as bacterial infections go, bacterial infections were never considered to cause cancer in the past but recent studies have shown that people who have H pylori infection may have increased risk of stomach cancer re: inflammation of the stomach lining. Of course this infection can be treated with antibiotics. Currently research is investigating whether substances produced by particular types of bacteria in the digestive system can increase the risk of bowel cancer. Research into bacteria causing cancer is in very early stages though.

If bacteria do play a role in causing cancer this would be very important to cancer prevention.

Whether or not it's genetics, carcinogens, viruses, bacteria, radiation or a combination of many factors -- cells start growing abnormally. Cancer cells are often shaped differently from healthy cells, they do not function properly, and they can spread to many areas of the body. This was no different in Rife's time RE: "It is generally accepted in the Rife communities, that modern day cancer is not the same beast that it was in Raymond Rife's time and they choose a multi-discipline approach to be on the safe side because of this.". I would assume they choose a multi-discipline approach to be on the safe side because they suspect that rife won't work alone but that's just my opinion.

From a Rife website:

He discovered the microbe that caused, or at minimum was deeply involved with cancer!

Once the frequency for the cancer-linked microbe was identified, it was a simple step to test his world-shaking discovery on mice, and then move to clinical treatment of supposedly “terminal” cancer patients.

We know that this is wrong. However, what if he was right that a microbe caused cancer. The microbe would act on cells to cause genetic changes, thus the cells would start growing out of control. If he zapped the cancer microbe with his machine, the cancer cells would be unaffected. It's like giving a person an antibiotic to kill the microbe, the cancerous cells would still remain.

In 1934 Rife and a team of doctors and scientists from leading medical research facilities cured 16 out of 16 cancer patients using the Frequency Machine.

There is absolutely zero proof of this. Let's see big pharma silenced them all, the scientists were murdered, buildings were burned to the ground. Even Royal Raymond Rife was murdered in a hospital via valium and alcohol poisoning -- he was 83 and probably died in his sleep. It's all so convenient to make up all this stuff just so you can say he did cure 16 people of cancer even though it flies totally in the face of what we know about cancer today. Even if all these people hadn't been murdered, buildings burnt to the ground, papers lost forever, Rife as a cure for cancer would still be seriously debunked because of the nature of cancer.

(from http://cancerquest.net/printfriendly.cfm?printsub=1921)
Something acts on cells to change the DNA to make them grow abnormally.
  • Hyperplasia -- the altered cell divides in an uncontrolled manner leading to an excess of cells in that region of the tissue. The cells have a normal appearance but there are too many of them.
  • Dysplasia-- additional genetic changes in the hyperplastic cells lead to the even more abnormal growth. The cells and the the tissue no longer look normal. The cells and the tissue may become disorganized.
  • Carcinoma in situ-- additional changes make the cells and tissues appear even more abnormal. The cells are now spread over a larger area and the region of the tissue involved contains primarily altered cells. Cancers of this type are often totally curable by surgery since the abnormal cells are all in one location. Tumors of this type have not yet invaded neighboring tissue. Based on information about patients with similar growths and microscopic examination, these growths are often considered to have the potential to become invasive and are treated as malignant growths.
  • Cancer (Malignant tumors) hese tumors have the ability to invade surrounding tissues and/or spread (metastasize) to areas outside the local tissue. These metastatic tumors are the most dangerous and account for a large percentage of cancer deaths.

We know from much research into cancer that to put cancer into remission, you have to get rid of the abnormal cells via surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. Surgery removes the cells, chemotherapy kills the cells, radiation kills the cells too. If there was a less invasive and traumatic way to treat cancer, it would be put to use which is why researchers look at ultrasound, look at developing ways of only killing the cancer cells rather than healthy tissue. Unfortunately, the frequencies used with Rife or Rife-like machines are not able to destroy cancer cells and tumours.

From: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/23/this-is-why-you-should-never-s-1/

It’s sad, after all this time we should be familiar with this technology but magical thinking still persists about radiowaves. Non-ionizing radiation does not interact with the molecules of your cells in a physiologically meaningful way. Some exceptions – in a 1.5 Tesla magnetic field RF might perturb the spins of atomic nuclei – but this has no physiologic effect. And specific frequencies of microwaves make water vibrate which generates heat. But RF frequencies do not make specific organisms oscillate, the notion is absurd. Remember, organisms on this planet are all made of the same building blocks, even if there were away to damage chemical bonds or proteins with RF, there is no reason it would be specific to one organism vs another, or even more ludicrous, specific to cancer cells over healthy cells.
 

brenda

Senior Member
Messages
2,270
Location
UK
We know from much research into cancer that to put cancer into remission, you have to get rid of the abnormal cells via surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. Surgery removes the cells, chemotherapy kills the cells, radiation kills the cells too. If there was a less invasive and traumatic way to treat cancer, it would be put to use which is why researchers look at ultrasound, look at developing ways of only killing the cancer cells rather than healthy tissue. Unfortunately, the frequencies used with Rife or Rife-like machines are not able to destroy cancer cells and tumours.

Utter rubbish. People are using all sorts of natural means to cure their cancers including frequencies. There are books written by the people all over the internet. They are not telling fairy tales.

Cancer cases are harder today because they are much more complicated by environmental toxins, food additives, etc. Much more by way of detoxification is required.

Chemotherapy has an average 3% success rate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?dopt=Abstract

Abstract
AIMS:
The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS:
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION:
As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.


Yes pharma shills all over the internet.
 

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
Yes @brenda -- anybody who can logically debunk the claims made by Rife by using science to do so is obviously a big pharma shill. I get paid thousands of dollars to post logical and factual information about rife. It is a great money earner for me. :rofl:

I didn't even mention survival rates, I mentioned treatment options which there is overwhelming evidence for. You can keep cherry picking research that confirms your own beliefs but that does nothing to support your contention that rife cures cancer which I feel free to call utter rubbish now.
 

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
Utter rubbish. People are using all sorts of natural means to cure their cancers including frequencies. There are books written by the people all over the internet. They are not telling fairy tales.

Cancer cases are harder today because they are much more complicated by environmental toxins, food additives, etc. Much more by way of detoxification is required.

Chemotherapy has an average 3% success rate.

If I am spouting 'utter rubbish' then please provide some research which identifies that alternative treatments alone cure cancer and by what modality. Yes there are books written by people all over the internet, does that make something true? Most of these people are tragically trying to make money from these books. It seems they are telling fairy tales because if they weren't these alternative cures would be used to treat cancer. There is a lot of bullshit on the internet that people buy into for various reasons. So if I wrote a book that I cured my cancer by eating mangoes six times a day, would that make it true? It really is a bad argument to say "it's on the internet, so it must be true".

Cancer has not become different over the years - there are just more cancer causing agents in our environment. The mechanism by which DNA is altered and cells grow out of control hasn't changed since Rife's time. You can't 'detox' cancer cells away and if you can, again please provide evidence of this -- research please. Where do you even get this kind of information from? Perhaps you should educate yourself on the physiology, biology, anatomy etc of cancer before making claims that now detoxing cures cancer and that cancer has become harder to treat over the years.

Where on earth did you get that statistic of 3% @brenda because there are numerous different types of cancers that respond different to chemotherapy and survival rates differ dramatically depending on type and nature of the cancer.

Chemotherapy isn't the only way to treat cancer and success rates depends on the type of cancer, how early it is caught, age, even the physical health of the person who has cancer.
 
Last edited:

brenda

Senior Member
Messages
2,270
Location
UK
Cancer has not become different over the years - there are just more cancer causing agents in our environment.

@Kina, yes and there is therefore more stress on our immune and detoxification systems which makes it a bit more difficult for cancer or any illness to be cured.

But here is all the evidence anyone could ever need as to whether cancer can be cured with natural medicine in this documentary I have found called, Cancer: The Forbidden Cures. Within one year, more die from cancer in the US than during the Holocaust, yet how many were unecessary?


I hr 13 mins but worth it and I hope everyone will watch this.

"In the last 100 years dozens of doctors, scientists and researchers have come up with the most diverse, apparently effective solutions against cancer, but none of these was ever taken into serious consideration by official medicine. Most of them were in fact rejected out-front, even though healings were claimed in the thousands, their proposers often being labeled as charlatans, ostracized by the medical community and ultimately forced to leave the country. At the same time more than 20,000 people die of cancer every day, without official medicine being able to offer a true sense of hope to those affected by it. Why?"
 
Last edited:

brenda

Senior Member
Messages
2,270
Location
UK
Where on earth did you get that statistic of 3%

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?dopt=Abstract

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.

We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS:
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
 
Last edited:

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?dopt=Abstract

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.

@brenda You might want to look at survival statistics for different cancers in different countries rather than simply cherry picking a study that agrees with your views. The Trip Database has thousands of studies that show survival rates for many different types of cancers using various treatment modalities which are likely more valid than one bad study.

Discussion of the study brenda posted -- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy/

Here is the study to which Moritz refers and which is the origin of the claim that “chemotherapy only provides 2% benefit,” a favorite talking point used by cancer quacks. I’ve seen it on websites ranging from Moritz’s website to NaturalNews.com, to Mercola.com, to Whale.to (my favorite), to I forget how many others. Always it’s the same thing, a variant of a statement claiming that chemotherapy only contributes 2% to five year survival in adult malignancies, followed by conspiracy-mongering of the sort above in which chemotherapy is portrayed as a huge scam designed to enrich big pharma. Indeed, so common is this particular favorite that I proclaim it “The 2% Gambit.” It turns out that this is not such an impressive study. Indeed, it appears almost intentionally designed to have left out the very types of cancers for which chemotherapy provides the most benefit, and it uses 5 year survival exclusively, completely neglecting that in some common cancers (such as breast cancer) chemotherapy can prevent late relapses. There were also a lot of inconsistencies and omissions in that leukemias were not included, while leukemia is one type of cancer against which chemotherapy is most efficacious. Indeed, the very technique of lumping all newly diagnosed adult cancers together is guaranteed to obscure benefits of chemotherapy among subgroups by lumping in patients for whom chemotherapy is not even indicated. A letter to the editor listed these problems and several really egregious errors and omissions, too:

The authors omitted leukaemias, which they curiously justify in part by citing the fact that it is usually treated by clinical haematologists rather than medical oncologists. They also wrongly state that only intermediate and high-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma of large-B cell type can be cured with chemotherapy, and ignore T-cell lymphomas and the highly curable Burkitt’s lymphoma. They neglect to mention the significant survival benefit achievable with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation to treat newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma [4]. In ovarian cancer, they quote a survival benefit from chemotherapy of 11% at 5 years, based on a single randomised-controlled trial (RCT), in which chemotherapy was given in both arms [5]; however, subsequent trials have reported higher 5-year survival rates. In cancers such as myeloma and ovarian cancer, in which chemotherapy has been used long before our current era of well-designed RCTs, the lack of RCT comparing chemotherapy to best supportive care should not be misconstrued to dismiss or minimise any survival benefit. In head and neck cancer, the authors erroneously claim the benefit from chemotherapy given concomitantly with radiotherapy in a meta-analysis to be 4%, when 8% was in fact reported [6].

The authors do not address the important benefits from chemotherapy to treat advanced cancer. Many patients with cancers such as lung and colon present or relapse with advanced incurable disease. For these conditions, chemotherapy significantly improves median survival rates, and may also improve quality of life by reducing symptoms and complications of cancer.

Of course, those using this particular gambit almost invariably never include the criticism of this particular article. Another aspect of this particular study that always bothered me is that it appeared to lump patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy in with those undergoing chemotherapy for cure or palliation. Adjuvant chemotherapy is given after surgery in order to decrease the rate of recurrence, but the truly curative modality is the surgery itself. In early stage cancer, the absolute benefit of chemotherapy in terms of prolonging survival tends to be modest, often single digit percentages. Lumping adjuvant therapy in with other uses of chemotherapy again appears custom-designed to minimize the survival benefit due to chemotherapy observed.

Another discussion of this research -- http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-3-percent-survive-chemotherapy/

I have watched the video posted in a previous post -- misinformation, unsupported by research ... Not really useful if you want actual scientific reasoning

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-hidden-cancer-cure/

This topic also brings up a meme that has been around for a long time – the notion that scientists have already cured cancer but the cure is being suppressed by the powers that be, to protect cancer as a source of income. In the comments to David’s article, Zuvrick writes:

So we can find a cure. It has probably happened multiple times. But nobody wants to cure cancer. Too many researchers earn a living seeking a cure by remaining inside a narrow, restricted channel of dogma. Their institutions get grant money and survive from the funding. Big Pharma makes big bucks selling chemotherapy drugs, surgeons remove tumors and various radiation devices employ radiologists and firms making these machines. MRI and CT scans would not be needed for cancer if Rife technology were available today.

I have heard or read some version of this claim since before I entered medical school. Superficially it may sound like profound wisdom (cynicism is a cheap way to sound wise) – but the idea collapses under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

First, as David thoroughly pointed out, the claim is implausible. Cancer is a complex set of diseases that defy sincere attempts at a cure. Those who promote the notion of the hidden cure often simultaneously promote wacky pseudoscientific treatments that they claim work – and Zuvrick is no exception. He believes that Royal Rife cured cancer 70 years ago. Rife was essentially a copycat of Albert Abrams who promoted his radio frequency devices. The concept is to use radio waves to alter the vibrations of cells in the body. This is pure nonsense.

One of Abrams’s many imitators was Royal Raymond Rife (1888-1971), an American who claimed that cancer was caused by bacteria. During the 1920s, he claimed to have developed a powerful microscope that could detect living microbes by the color of auras emitted by their vibratory rates. His Rife Frequency Generator allegedly generates radio waves with precisely the same frequency, causing the offending bacteria to shatter in the same manner as a crystal glass breaks in response to the voice of an opera singer. The American Cancer Society has pointed out that although sound waves can produce vibrations that break glass, radio waves at the power level emitted a Rife generator do not have sufficient energy to destroy bacteria.

But let’s explore the logic of the hidden cure a bit further. Given that cancer is such a complex set of diseases, there is a vast and evolving science exploring the causes and behavior of cancers. This research takes place in numerous labs around the world. A cure for cancer would likely emerge from a collaboration among many researchers, in different labs and institutions, and even in different countries. Even if one lab made a significant breakthrough, it would be the capstone on top of a large body of research that was available to the entire community (and in fact the public). It would be impossible to keep other researchers from replicating the final steps that lead to a cure.

Often the hidden cure conspiracy idea is framed around the claim that a pharmaceutical company would hide such a cure to protect their profits from other cancer drugs. This claim fails not only for the reason above but for a separate practical reason. It would take about 100 millions dollars of research (if not more) to prove that a drug was actually a cure for one type of cancer (let alone all types of cancer). Why would a pharmaceutical company spend that kind of research money on a drug they know they have no intention of marketing, just so that they can suppress it? Also – where would they do such research? How could they get past all the regulatory hurdles to perform human research without revealing what they are doing?

Often those who claim that “they” are hiding a cure for cancer have only a vague notion of who “they” are. They generally have an image of the “medical establishment” as monolithic, but nothing could be further from the truth. The medical establishment is composed of universities, professional organizations, journals, regulatory agencies, researchers, funding agencies, and countless individuals – all with differing incentives and perspectives. The idea that they would all be in on a massive conspiracy to hide perhaps the greatest cure known to mankind is beyond absurd.

For those who think the profit motive is sufficient explanation, not all of the people and institutions named are for profit. And what about countries with socialized medicine who could dramatically reduce their health care costs if a cancer cure were found? Is Canada, the UK, all of the European Union, in fact, in on the conspiracy to protect American cancer treatment profits? It’s as if hidden cure conspiracy theorists forget that there are other countries in the world.

I thought this thread is supposed to be about rife -- sorry for getting so off- topic. And before I get accused of being a total sceptic, I do believe that many alternative therapies provide symptom relief but I don't believe in fantastical and dangerous claims such as rife cures cancer. I think the scientific evidence speaks for itself or maybe in Rife's case, the lack of scientific evidence.​
 

brenda

Senior Member
Messages
2,270
Location
UK
I have watched the video posted in a previous post -- misinformation, unsupported by research ... Not really useful if you want actual scientific reasoning I think the scientific evidence speaks for itself or maybe in Rife's case, the lack of scientific evidence.

@Kina I don't see how anything can be gained in continuing this discussion if the video I posted did not make any impact.

We are speaking from two opposing world views. Scientific reasoning, scientific evidence, and scientific research, are all set up to produce a highly profitable industry, whereby chemicals, surgery and radio therapy are used to treat the cancers (and many chronic diseases) which are caused through the highly profitable industry of food production, and environmental toxins, which makes some men very rich indeed and a large part of the population very sick indeed. It is all about the money.

The video showed that people working with alternative cures for cancer through natural means, have been hounded, threatened and forced to cease curing people with cancer including Royal Raymond Rife. It is not actually difficult to live without the pharmaceutical world, I have done it for many years despite serious sicknesses and will continue to do so should I develop cancer as I wish to survive and my best chance of doing so is to avoid the un-natural use of highly toxic and invasive remedies which have been shown to be highly ineffective with a low rate of success as shown on a link I gave.

The claims that there is insufficient scientific evidence that frequency therapy cures cancer are meaningless. They is only appropriate in the sick world of people who care more about money than human beings and they will be judged one day.

I am out.
 
Last edited:

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
We are speaking from two opposing world views. Scientific reasoning, scientific evidence, and scientific research, are all set up to produce a highly profitable industry, whereby chemicals, surgery and radio therapy are used to treat the cancers (and many chronic diseases) which are caused through the highly profitable industry of food production, and environmental toxins, which makes some men very rich indeed and a large part of the population very sick indeed. It is all about the money.
Are you seriously suggesting that "science" is a big-pharma conspiracy? That's so outlandish I don't even know where to start.

The scientific method is a straight-forward process to make sure things actually work. It pre-dates big pharma, and can be applied to pretty much everything in the physical realm.

One of the goals of the scientific method is to eliminate bias as much as possible. Anecdotal reports are badly subjected to bias, but scientific trials can be designed to remove or minimize bias. The fact that rife and related technologies are only effective anecdotally, but not in any published scientific trials, is a strong indication that rife & co are ineffective.

If you're going to indiscriminately trash the concept of science and/or the scientific method, perhaps you should suggest a better system to replace it. Otherwise, please just accept that some therapies have no scientific basis. It's your right to embrace those therapies as something that works for you, and/or as a spiritual or faith-based treatment, but the best method of determining efficacy ever devised by mankind clearly states that it does not cure disase.

It's not science, so stop trying to sell it as such. And as there is no superior method of proving efficacy, it's a complete cop-out to summarily dismiss the reliability of science in an attempt to un-disprove the ineffectiveness of rife.
 

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
We are speaking from two opposing world views. Scientific reasoning, scientific evidence, and scientific research, are all set up to produce a highly profitable industry, whereby chemicals, surgery and radio therapy are used to treat the cancers (and many chronic diseases) which are caused through the highly profitable industry of food production, and environmental toxins, which makes some men very rich indeed and a large part of the population very sick indeed. It is all about the money.

The video showed that people working with alternative cures for cancer through natural means, have been hounded, threatened and forced to cease curing people with cancer including Royal Raymond Rife. It is not actually difficult to live without the pharmaceutical world, I have done it for many years despite serious sicknesses and will continue to do so should I develop cancer as I wish to survive and my best chance of doing so is to avoid the un-natural use of highly toxic and invasive remedies which have been shown to be highly ineffective with a low rate of success as shown on a link I gave.

The claims that there is insufficient scientific evidence that frequency therapy cures cancer are meaningless. They is only appropriate in the sick world of people who care more about money than human beings and they will be judged one day.

Big Pharma conspiracy?

How does that work. Do 'they' infiltrate Universities and other research institutions where many are looking for answers related to Cancer that have nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.

How does it work for countries like the UK and Canada where health care costs are breaking down the economy and there are huge deficits because of health care costs? For pete's sake, if baking soda cured cancer they would be handing out free boxes in the doctors offices in Ontario rather than resorting to expensive procedures. If Rife actually worked, they would be giving people instructions on how to build a machine.

Once a pilot study or some kind of research comes out that suggests an answer for treatment/cure is being found, scientist race to replicate these things. Big pharma's nasty evil arms don't reach that far.

To have your name associated with cancer cure would be a coup for that scientist or scientists and would mean a nobel prize. Not all are in it for the money.

Do you think if Big Pharma spent billions of dollars developing a drug that cured cancer that they would then turn around and hide that they have done so because they want to keep people sick. Um, no -- they would make billions on that drug because cancer isn't going to go away all of a sudden. The drug would replace chemo, radiation, and surgery. But really, this is unlikely because Cancer isn't just one illness and treatments have to be tailored to the individual cancers.

Big Pharma has it's problems that's for sure but the world of alternative therapy isn't so innocent either -- full of scams, it's a billion dollar industry in itself (some supplements are way more expensive than pharma drugs), full of claims that are unsupported by scientific evidence etc etc etc.

So when we are talking about 'highly profitable' industries let's not forget the supplement industry and all those people who sell 'health' books and alternative therapies are in it to make money too. I wonder who will be judging these people in the end?

You know who would love a cure for Cancer -- Big Tobacco. :rofl:
 
Last edited:

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
And how do you explain over 15,000 'scientific' trials over the years, peer reviewed, in these so called impeccable journals stating that tobacco doesnt cause Cancer?
 

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
And how do you explain over 15,000 'scientific' trials over the years, peer reviewed, in these so called impeccable journals stating that tobacco doesnt cause Cancer?

I was joking RE my Big Tobacco comment @golden

I think it would be more correct to say that smoking tobacco increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor rather than saying smoking causes cancer. There are actually very few studies that look at the actual correlation between smoking and lung cancer and it seems that lung cancer rates do not correlate with smoking rates. But this is a conversation that definitely doesn't belong on this thread.
 

maryb

iherb code TAK122
Messages
3,602
Location
UK
I can't read all of this thread, caught my eye as I just heard an anecdotal story about a doctor (in the US) who had Lyme. he had had various treatments but it wasn't until he started to use a Rife machine that he saw a dramatic improvement, this is recently so who knows.
 

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
I was joking RE my Big Tobacco comment @golden

I think it would be more correct to say that smoking tobacco increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor rather than saying smoking causes cancer. There are actually very few studies that look at the actual correlation between smoking and lung cancer and it seems that lung cancer rates do not correlate with smoking rates. But this is a conversation that definitely doesn't belong on this thread.

This seems apt:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563590/
 

zzz

Senior Member
Messages
675
Location
Oregon
I think it would be more correct to say that smoking tobacco increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor rather than saying smoking causes cancer.

Established science disagrees with you strongly here. From the National Cancer Institute (of the NIH):
Smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer.

From the CDC:
Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. Cigarette smoking kills more than 480,000 Americans each year, with more than 41,000 of these deaths from exposure to secondhand smoke... Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 7,300 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.

And another page from the CDC:
Doctors have known for years that smoking causes most lung cancer. It's still true today, when nearly 9 out of 10 lung cancers are caused by smoking cigarettes.

From Cancer Research UK:
Smoking is by far the most important preventable cause of cancer in the world... Smoking causes more than four in five cases of lung cancer. Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of all cancers, and is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK.

From The American Cancer Society:
The 1982 United States Surgeon General’s report stated that “Cigarette smoking is the major single cause of cancer mortality [death] in the United States .” This statement is as true today as it was then.

From the Mayo Clinic:
Smoking causes the majority of lung cancers — both in smokers and in people exposed to secondhand smoke.

From the NHS (UK):
Most cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking...

From The American Lung Association:
Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively.

(I just saw Golden's post - the following tobacco company quotes can be found there.)
From Liggett, a major cigarette manufacturer:
We at Liggett know and acknowledge that, as the Surgeon General and respected medical researchers have found, cigarette smoking causes health problems, including lung cancer

From Philip Morris USA - the leading US cigarette manufacturer and the maker of Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Benson & Hedges, Merit, and many other cigarette brands:
There is an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer...

From Lorillard Tobacco Company, makers of Newport, Kent, True, Old Gold, and other cigarette brands:
All cigarettes are dangerous and smoking can cause serious diseases, including lung cancer.

From the Australian Government's Cigarettes and Cancer Web site:
In 2003, more than 7,700 cancer deaths and 10,300 new cases of cancer in Australia were estimated to be caused by smoking.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

@Kina, as for your statement, "But this is a conversation that definitely doesn't belong on this thread," I don't see that it's fair to throw dangerously inaccurate statements into this thread as you have done, and then effectively tell people not to respond here. The statements you have made are similar to statements formerly made by the tobacco companies, from which they have withdrawn.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Undisclosed

Senior Member
Messages
10,157
@zzz you missed my point entirely. I was trying to make a subtle point regarding causation and correlation. I did say risk factor so people do get cancer from smoking. You don't need to convince me of that. I thought that was obvious. I am sorry my meaning wasn't obvious and excuse me for feeling extra sick today and not explaining myself adequately and leaving myself open to your very personal comments.
 

Sushi

Moderation Resource Albuquerque
Messages
19,935
Location
Albuquerque
Please, let's get back to the discussion about Rife machines. Tobacco was a diversion that has been dealt with adequately for this thread. If you wish to continue discussing the role of tobacco and health, please do so in another thread.
 
Messages
2
Oh boy, Rife machines.

First of all, my apologies to CFS_for_19_years, who tried to get this thread back on track. (Note: thread is now split--the original discussion is here.) I just thought that the earlier discussion of Rife machines would be incomplete without a little more information from someone who has used one of these machines extensively.

I will report only on what I know; this includes very little of the political history, as I didn't find it very relevant to me.

First of all, there is no single "Rife Machine" today. The machine that Royal Rife built was eventually banned (I believe by the FDA), and even today it and all related machines are considered "illegal medical devices". By the time of Rife's death, his machine had fallen into disrepair, and only a few parts remained. So none of the Rife machines available today work exactly like Royal Rife's machine, as the operating principles of that machine have been lost. (Note: I just discovered this site, which claims to have used existing parts and schematics to rebuild the original Rife machine. I haven't had time to read much here, but I haven't found anything outrageous so far.)

I came across Rife machines in the Yahoo groups when I was trying to figure out whether I had Lyme disease or ME. While reading the posts there, it was clear that whatever I did have, these machines were working very well for people, and should be useful for either disease. In general, throughout my illness, I have not waited for peer-reviewed studies to be published, as the information about the treatments in these studies is usually available years before these studies happen, if they happen at all. This is why, in 2001, before Valcyte was available, I took a seven-week course of IV ganciclovir (the active metabolite of Valcyte). Ganciclovir had been used a lot with AIDS patients, but there were some nasty side effects, such as people sometimes losing their kidneys.

I managed to talk to Nancy Klimas directly to get her views on this treatment. She strongly recommended against it, citing the known side effects she had seen in her AIDS patients, and recommended that I wait for the results of clinical trials. However, clinical trials weren't even planned at that point, and the first one by Dr. Montoya didn't take place until five years later. Meanwhile, I was going downhill really fast. The anecdotal reports I had seen ranged from mildly positive to essentially curative. I talked to one of the two doctors in the U.S. who was doing these treatments, and he said that he had never seen kidney or liver damage in any of his patients. He thought that this was because the individual organs tended to be healthier in ME patients than in very sick AIDS patients. He did occasionally see neutropenia, but he said that this was easily reversed with a brief respite from the treatment.

So yes, I realized there was some risk of losing my kidneys (although kidney function tests were performed daily during the treatment), but at the rate I was failing, it soon wouldn't matter whether my kidneys survived or not. So I took the seven-week course, and almost got to the point where I could go back to work. My health has never declined to the point it was before that treatment.

Similarly, when I saw all the reports of people being helped by Rife machines on the Lyme boards (and I believe that there were at least hundreds of these reports), and no permanent ill effects, I decided to try Rife. I was having severe problems with my gut for the first time in my illness, and antibiotics, probiotics, and supplements just weren't cutting it.

Now there are all sorts of products that call themselves Rife machines. As for the quote:


Well, I can't say what's going on in Australia, but that's certainly not a "typical" Rife machine in the U.S. Such a machine could not conform to any of the general principles used in Rife machines. I have never seen this type of "Rife" machine.

If you want to learn about the different types of Rife machines that have actually helped people, Lyme Disease and Rife Machines is the standard text. The author's grasp of physics is somewhat imperfect, but not too bad. Fortunately, he's not the one building the machines or using them.

A number of the books on Rife are complete nonsense, unfortunately. There are also a huge number of machines calling themselves "Rife" machines that are of questionable value. It's hard to do research in the field when use of these machines for treatment is banned.

As for whether these machines emit radio waves, well, some do and some don't. It depends on the type of machine. Some effective machines certainly do use waves in the radio frequency range, including the original Rife machine.

One of the two Rife machines I have is an advanced Doug Coil Machine, named after the eponymous Doug, who cured himself of Lyme disease using a machine built along these principles. I don't know how much you can tell from the pictures on the site, but these machines are very high quality; they are built by a former NASA engineer who used one to cure himself of Lyme disease. Now he makes a living selling these machines. And whereas a typical microwave oven uses 1100 watts, this machine uses 1500 watts, so it is certainly not underpowered. I calculated that the strength of the magnetic field delivered to the target area of the body by the electromagnets is about 2% of that of an MRI machine. Consider that MRI machines require a liquid helium coolant (and often liquid nitrogen as well), this machine is extraordinarily efficient; the magnets are cooled sufficiently by a couple of small fans.

Although the magnets aren't strong enough to snap metal out of your hands, the dozen times or so that I've forgotten to take off my watch before using the machine, the watch always stopped. (I was always able to revive it.) Recently, I was doing a treatment around my belly when I felt my belly getting very warm. Investigating, I found that my metal belt buckle wasn't centered, and was actually within a couple of inches of one of the magnets. When I touched it, I almost burned my finger. After the treatment, I examined my belt, and found that the part under the buckle had been completely burned. I had to throw the belt away.

OK, so these are powerful magnets. But what about the results?

The whole machine was a big gamble, but fortunately it worked out very well. It takes a while to build up to the therapeutic treatment length; if you go too fast, you can make yourself quite ill for a while. So I took it slowly, and my gut started to quiet down, as long as I remained on the antibiotics, Within a year, I was able to eliminate one antibiotic, and then the other. Eventually, I was able to move the Rife treatment from once every four days to "as needed", which isn't very often.

Sometimes when I did the earlier treatments, my whole GI tract would be making rumbling and splashing and gurgling and various other noises. When I turned the magnets toward my stomach, these sounds would stop within seconds. This happened many times. I no longer get those sounds.

One of the times I was talking with Alex (the builder of my Rife machine), he mentioned that there was some evidence that this type of Rife machine also worked as an immune system booster. He said that once Doug had cured himself of Lyme disease (remember Doug?), he would use the machine about once every six months, and he never came down with any colds or other infections.

Well, my immune system could certainly use a boost. It had crashed completely in 2001, and although I was able to jump start it with pulsed Valcyte, it clearly still had a lot of problems. For example, over the next eight years, I came down with pneumonia five times.

But by the fifth time, I was well into my Rife treatment, and that last case of pneumonia was rather mild. It was also the last case I had, and that's now five years ago. In the intervening five years, I've had no colds, no cases of the flu, no other new infections. But the old ones are still there - they make themselves evident from time to time. It would seem that the Th1 side of my immune system is still problematic.

Starting shortly after the beginning of my illness, like many men with ME, I started developing prostate problems, which gradually got worse until they were like those of an 80-year-old-man. (I'll spare you the details.) By the middle of my Rife treatment, all these problems had almost completely disappeared, and my prostate was actually doing a lot better than average for a man of my age. This was completely unexpected. Now, if my prostate starts to act up at all, I just use one Rife treatment, and it's immediately back to normal.

That was an unexpected bonus. I had never heard of people using Rife machines to treat chronic prostatitis.

Finally, rather recently, I discovered that I had taken Ritchie Shoemaker's Visual Contrast Sensitivity test twice back in 2005. The two numbers were almost identical - 52% and 54%, respectively. That's a strong positive for neurotoxins. I noticed I still had one test left, so I took it. This time I scored 91% - a clear negative. Was this due to the Rife machine? I have no idea. But apparently I've been doing something right.

What about using the Rife machine for all my other ME symptoms? I've certainly tried, but so far I've not had success. The whole key to proper Rife treatment is knowing which frequency or frequencies to use. (Interestingly, Royal Rife's frequencies are used these days in a number of laser therapy protocols.)

The standard book for Rife frequencies, which includes much more than Rife's original frequencies, is The Handbook of Rife Frequency Healing. It's got frequencies for every illness known to man, which in itself is rather suspicious, especially since there's no documentation as to where these frequencies came from, how they were determined and tested, etc. (In contrast, Rife himself has a modest list of frequencies.) I've tried various frequencies from this book (including the ones for "CFS"), but they seem ineffective. Additionally, the textual part of this book is utter nonsense; it ignores all medicine developed in the last two hundred years, distorts the scientific method completely, etc. So overall, I think the book is worthless, despite its 4.7 out of 5 stars at Amazon. (I just noticed that a new copy of the paperback edition of this book is selling for $486.80. That's more than ten times what I paid for it! Her other books on Rife are "only" $134 dollars each.)

As for where I got the frequencies that work so well for me, these came from Doug, who determined them experimentally; they're in the Lyme Disease and Rife Machines book.

So where does that leave me? I haven't given up on getting further relief from ME, but there are about 2000 frequencies available on my machine, and some may need to be used in combination. So I don't have any firm leads in that area right now.

What about cancer treatments? I have no idea. Theoretically, there's no reason why that would be impossible, as cancer cells are different from normal cells, and certain frequencies might be able to exploit this difference. The ability of the Rife machine to boost the immune system could also be helpful here. I just don't know enough personally to say one way or the other. These machines have benefited enough people, though, that I think serious research (at least on the best of them) is warranted.

What about the theory behind these machines? Unlike many forms of alternative medicine, these machines are based on standard, known physics. Pulsing electromagnetic fields affect living cells; this is how MRI machines work. After all, they're Magnetic Resonance Imaging machines. Just like Rife machines, they make the cells of the body vibrate. The difference is that a Rife machine makes certain cells vibrate by using a resonance that's fatal to them. As for being able to destroy certain cells, this post by Hip gives one example, and once the principle is demonstrated, it would seem unlikely that that would be the only example. Doug also determined his frequencies by seeing which ones killed bacteria in vitro. So these machines don't come into conflict with known science, or require any new forces; they are simply based on a phenomenon that has already been scientifically demonstrated under various circumstances. What their potential is has yet to be fully demonstrated, but further research should clarify this. In the mean time, I am quite happy with my Rife machine, as it has benefited me greatly in many ways.
Well I know this is an old post, but THANK YOU. A voice of reason speaking truth, with no axe to grind, is very refreshing at this point in this forum!!!