1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
A Little Poisoning Along the Road to ME/CFS
Looking at my symptoms, many of which are far less these days and some are gone, it would be easy to figure that I'd just been dealing with some heavy-duty menopausal issues.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

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

Discussion in 'Alternative Therapies' started by brenda, Jul 3, 2014.

  1. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    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:

    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.

    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/

     
    Kati and Valentijn like this.
  2. brenda

    brenda Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes:
    668
    UK
    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.

    Yes pharma shills all over the internet.
     
    golden likes this.
  3. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    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.
     
    Valentijn likes this.
  4. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    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: Jul 13, 2014
    Sushi and Valentijn like this.
  5. brenda

    brenda Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes:
    668
    UK
    @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.

     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
    Tammy, golden and zzz like this.
  6. brenda

    brenda Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes:
    668
    UK
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?dopt=Abstract

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

     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
    golden and zzz like this.
  7. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    @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/

    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


    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.​
     
    Valentijn likes this.
  8. brenda

    brenda Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes:
    668
    UK
    @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: Jul 16, 2014
    golden likes this.
  9. Valentijn

    Valentijn Activity Level: 3

    Messages:
    6,711
    Likes:
    10,212
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    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.
     
  10. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    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: Jul 18, 2014
    Soundthealarm21, Kati and Valentijn like this.
  11. golden

    golden Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes:
    1,076
    Clear Light
    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?
     
    zzz likes this.
  12. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    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.
     
  13. maryb

    maryb iherb code TAK122

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes:
    2,061
    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.
     
    zzz likes this.
  14. golden

    golden Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes:
    1,076
    Clear Light
    This seems apt:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563590/
     
    zzz likes this.
  15. zzz

    zzz Senior Member

    Messages:
    274
    Likes:
    683
    Oregon
    Established science disagrees with you strongly here. From the National Cancer Institute (of the NIH):
    From the CDC:
    And another page from the CDC:
    From Cancer Research UK:
    From The American Cancer Society:
    From the Mayo Clinic:
    From the NHS (UK):
    From The American Lung Association:
    (I just saw Golden's post - the following tobacco company quotes can be found there.)
    From Liggett, a major cigarette manufacturer:
    From Philip Morris USA - the leading US cigarette manufacturer and the maker of Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Benson & Hedges, Merit, and many other cigarette brands:
    From Lorillard Tobacco Company, makers of Newport, Kent, True, Old Gold, and other cigarette brands:
    From the Australian Government's Cigarettes and Cancer Web site:
    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: Jul 18, 2014
    golden likes this.
  16. Kina

    Kina Moderation Team Lead

    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes:
    4,718
    Ontario, Canada
    @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.
     
  17. Sushi

    Sushi Moderator and Senior Member Albuquerque

    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes:
    6,359
    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.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page