Can a Rife machine cure cancer?

[CharBoehm]

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