Can a Rife machine cure cancer?

The conspiration theory or that studies are prevented in the U.S. is all bull shit. I wouldn't buy a book that revolves around those claims. Better to go to reliable literature, which easily disproves those claims. This for example:



I think people should be tired of manufacturers that do no test and have no data, because that's usually the truth. And we know that there are so many unsubstantiated claims. It is very obvious that, if you try to patent or publish a paper so send a rocket to the moon fueled by pizza, everybody will laugh and you will get your application rejected. Do a correct research, and all will accept it.

The entire electromagnetic field is well studied and it is known what it can do and what it cannot. Any other thing is just a mystification to sell books or devices. I noticed that device manufacturers are usually very eager to make things that do not work, hiding on the claims of others. There is a clear reason for this: If it does not work, it's the guilt of the user, as he is mistaking the frequencies or using the machine wrong. If it works, by some miracle, it's a proof that the manufacturer will exhibit.
But... if a manufacturer would have a really working machine, that would be a problem. This is because a machine that works, will not just work on microbes, but will also affect somewhat the user. As with every medicine, if you just mistake dosage, you can kill. Will a manufacturer take this risk and get sued if something goes wrong? No, better to have a machine that does nothing, so it is safe. That's the current status of manufactured "Rife machines", and that's why the scientific community is against it. Rightfully, it tries to shut down an illegal business that is living on people's despair, to rip them off.

Of course, not everyone is on the same boat. Some, but too few, do serious research. The issue is that most are uneducated or live in their world, disconnected from the rest of the people (read, scientific community).

After you analyze the good and extensive scientific documentation on the subject, you will see that original Rife machines could do much more that that. Therefore, electromagnetism and frequencies are not the only means that he used. And this is where I do my own research.

I add a screenshot from the books above, which show the study of electromagnetic fields also in cancer cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl Buchanan

https://altered-states.net/index2.php look down page for parameceum murder video

Rifevideos.com has a lot of info that might help

---

Who is the author/owner of Rifevideos.com? Thanks.

Hi!
Nobody thinks that it is about some conspiracy theories and mainly about the money that pharmaceutical companies can lose if it turns out that many diseases can be cured effectively (not only by masking the symptoms as they do now) and the companies would not earn anything on it. Only people paid for by these companies disparage any other way that causes their sponsors to lose their earnings. From my backyard: I wanted to work with a hospice where various cancer patients are waiting for death. Initially, I proposed a test of my ionic silver for bedsores and other skin problems of patients. I was refused because the doctor, who is paid by the state and on whom the state subsidy depends, did not allow the use of this preparation because there is no appropriate certification and nurses are allowed only to use what the doctor recommends.
Privately, many people use my preparation because it helps with skin problems and mucous membranes.
Coming back to the topic, I believe that a frequency machine can cure cancer effectively, but certainly not all devices, conditions and types of cancer. You can also cure cancer without such devices. You just need to know its weak points - Achilles heels.

Neenah said : Nonetheless, there are thousands of studies that have managed to make it into medical journals on the use of electromagnetically delivered frequencies, electricity, and magnetic fields in medicine.

...... Mmmkay no argument there from me.

I would be glad to review the yeast protocol. But I have a funny feeling that scrutiny would not be welcome, even tho I am outside USA, don't work for FDA, and have a Researchgate profile and PhD on RF Bioeffects.

PM me we can arrange something by email.

The manufacturer claims are not your responsibility ? Technically that's true. But why not take it to the next level ? Who could it harm ? I am less sceptical than government employees but I can't just believe a video. I need to review the concepts for apparatus and bio protocols to determine if it's the real deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Shore

Who is the author/owner of Rifevideos.com? Thanks.

---

Don't know em - you should look that one up on the site

"The conspiration theory or that studies are prevented in the U.S. is all bull shit.

Not as much bullshit as that pathetic opening volley of another one of your all garlic eminence fronts! Haha!
Playing the childish switch tactic, when everybody knows very clearly it has nothing to do with research, was the end of your entire presentation. I respond poorly to being treated the pumpkin at a c level debate in the first place.

"I wouldn't buy a book that revolves around those claims. Better to go to reliable literature, which easily disproves those claims. This for example:"

We have those books and I will take your surely remote location and quaintness, as an excuse for rank ignorance of that, instead of thinking it just another thinly veiled oppotunity to insult everyone and affirm your (slippery) eminence. That would be so droll after all.

"The entire electromagnetic field is well studied and it is known what it can do and what it cannot.
Someone once told me that when someone passed a great giant steaming stinker, the only thing one can do is let it ferment there......tactics tactics tactics

(I confess, it was when i hit the "empirical evidence" of "shill or blowhardy wannbe?" that I used the excuse of porcene persona to succumb to my own awful personality and surgically point out my obvious "holes" in that research? For they seem like repetative circular A holes mostly and my frequencies resonated......pardon me and bon soi)

Gosh, slippery eminence. This is pure poetry.

I got the impression forum members are expected not to turn debates into insult contests . It gives the readers indigestion . When you question. Whether flatulance is politically correct. Or what the heck. To say any old thing that enters your head . Instead . Of following forum decorum . I can walk down the ghetto street any day to hear trash talk. In fact when I open the garbage bin I hear the trash talk. But hey, some days it really stinks. That's what I thinks. Anyway.

I quickly scanned the site in the obvious places but couldn't find the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw Chmielarz

Hi!
We have two supporters of conducting certification research for frequency machines. I would like to read what standards will these researchers refer to and what test procedures during the research and evaluation of results?...
Please provide me with such standards for testing the effectiveness of cancer treatment when there are so many factors involved, which the previous speaker (Yuriy) wrote about, such as the physical condition of the patient, the mental condition of the patient and how it will affect the test results. Of course, you can choose for example lung cancer patients, only each case will be different for the reasons described above and the type / type of cancer. [snip]

---

Stanislaw, thank you for posting your thoughts on this.

In reality, Dr. Milbank Johnson's 1934 cancer project at La Jolla was a group of case studies, not a true clinical trial. Even in those years, researchers knew the difference, which is significant.

The modern challenges to performing a clinical trial involving people with cancer, are tremendous. For starters, about the study design: a) finding enough study participants and control persons; b) is agency approval required; c) is a separate person needed to statistically analyze data; d) is lab equipment needed to document results; e) is the scope of a proposed study so wide that it becomes impossible to do everything in one study.

Then there are possible confounding factors that could skew the results: a) type of cancer; b) stage of cancer; c) immune status; d) age and sex.

Finally, it can be difficult to get results published, even if a study is finished. If there is a lot of money spent on a study and it is not done well, it will get torn apart faster than scavengers on a dead animal.

Many people's expectations that data should be available by now, 86 years after the La Jolla "clinical trial", is understandable. But Rife did not propose or run that trial, Johnson did. And Johnson said in a letter that the results were not yet conclusive. The 1934 "trial" has undoubtedly been overblown in its significance.

Probably the best that could be done at this juncture, unless significant funding were available, would be to report cancer "case studies" with as much detail as possible, without revealing personal information. Even then, it might require permission of the person using frequencies.

It might be much easier to do in-vitro lab work on certain pathogens, probably bacteria. And it would probably be wise to initially choose non-pathogenic bacteria, species that don't have a lot of variance (which would for instance rule out E. coli). If pathogenic bacteria were used, appropriate training would be needed for handling.

It's so good to have high expectations; it is easy to complain not enough is happening. But carrying out such projects is demanding of money, time, knowledge, and energy. And they require lots of planning. I have a relative that advises doctors and groups on designing reliable studies. When I talk with that person about these issues, it's enough to make one's head spin.

Best wishes,
Charlene Boehm

I should clarify one thought that I wrote in my previous message, "It might be much easier to do in-vitro lab work on certain pathogens, probably bacteria. And it would probably be wise to initially choose non-pathogenic bacteria, species that don't have a lot of variance (which would for instance rule out E. coli)."

There is a strain of non-pathogenic Escherichia coli available, so that might work for lab testing if proper lab procedures are used which avoid contamination from other pathogenic E. coli strains.

Charlene Boehm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Shore

I quickly scanned the site in the obvious places but couldn't find the info.

---

Hello David,

Some older versions of the paper have this information:

Written by: Jeff Garff
AAA Production Inc.
Copyright © 2003 & 2008
www.rifevideos.com

or

Written by: J. Garff
Copyright © 2003 & 2010
All rights reserved.

Hope the information is helpful for you.

Charlene Boehm

19

Peace be upon Yours All.
I stand up for the E. coli Bacterium, our Friend.

Quote:

---

How the E. coli Bacterium Can Benefit Us
The bacterium Escherichia coli is often thought of as a pathogen, but it’s typically found in the intestine as a regular part of gut flora. New work by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder has now shown that it’s a vital part of that microbial community because it helps cells absorb iron, an essential nutrient. Reported in Cell, this study sheds light on how gut bacteria are beneficial to our health, and may also improve therapeutics that aim to treat iron deficiencies.

Read more
https://www.labroots.com/trending/mi...terium-benefit

---

Sincerely
** Ali **

Hi!
E. Coli bacteria do not harm us if it is only where it should be, i.e. in the intestines. If the intestinal walls are overrun by fungi or other pathogens that damage the intestinal walls, then this bacteria and other bacteria can enter the bloodstream and then harm us. Sitting in the intestines, they do a beneficial job for our body, and they are said to also produce H2O2, which is ammunition for white blood cells.

Hi

Novocure, maybe known to all of you, uses electric fields (for example 1V/cm internally) with dedicated frequencies (below 200KHz and with relative large tolerances) to increase survival time of cancer patients. They are doing multiple studies in different countries, for example in 5 different clinics in Belgium I am aware off. They have much material published.
Yesterday (10December 2020) they made this announcement about serious clinical investigations:
https://www.novocure.com/first-patient-enrolled-in-novocures-global-phase-3-trident-trial-of-optune-concurrent-with-radiation-therapy-in-newly-diagnosed-glioblastoma/


Besides all that activity and studies, they are also working on reducing bacteria and virus growth at higher frequency ranges; although there is not much published material available yet, you can find some information in patent application US20200016399A1.

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20200016399.pdf

They have also found that the efficiency of frequency therapy reduces during its long term use. See patent application US20200306531A1

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20200306531.pdf

I thought James Bare wrote also about this effect in the past.

They also found that changing frequencies and amplitudes elevates the efficiency . See patent applications US20170281934A1 and US20140330268A1

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20170281934.pdf

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20140330268.pdf


These are mechanisms I read about before anectodely on this form and others but seems to be confirmed in serious research work

I did not see any other company or researcher publish data of repeated studies on electric fields and frequency therapy.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanislaw Chmielarz

Hi!
E. Coli bacteria do not harm us if it is only where it should be, i.e. in the intestines. If the intestinal walls are overrun by fungi or other pathogens that damage the intestinal walls, then this bacteria and other bacteria can enter the bloodstream and then harm us. Sitting in the intestines, they do a beneficial job for our body, and they are said to also produce H2O2, which is ammunition for white blood cells.

---

That's right.
60-70% with the urogenital system is caused by E. coli.
It is very pathogenic.

Tony,

In the patent, named "Inhibiting Viral Infection"

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20200016399.pdf

It says, "the alternating electric field inhibits infection of the cells in the target region by the virus"

However no mechanism is given.

What are the investigators missing ?

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Jenson

Tony,

In the patent, named "Inhibiting Viral Infection"

https://www.freepatentsonline.com/20200016399.pdf

It says, "the alternating electric field inhibits infection of the cells in the target region by the virus"

However no mechanism is given.

What are the investigators missing ?

Dan

---

I only mentioned a couple of links as example, find much more at their website and in publications

Tony

19

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuriy Vladimirovich

That's right.
60-70% with the urogenital system is caused by E. coli.
It is very pathogenic.

---

Hi Yuriy, Peace be upon You and Yours All.
That is a hygiene issue. Mostly because in the western countrys, People use toiletpaper and don´t clean with water straight way. In western toilets is no bidet, only for the rich.
Especialy for woman a issue, because there is not much distance between anus and vulva.
The problem is the behavior of host not the bacteria.

Sincerely
** Ali **