Jump to content
NewsLady

Rife Treatments, Cancer Cures, Holistic Therapies, Pharmaceutical Research

Recommended Posts

Rife treatments

Raymond Royal Rife a scientist in the 1930’s discovered that if you play a resonant electromagnetic frequency to an organism it will oscillate or vibrate with it, until it bursts, like the singers trick of singing the specific note of a drinking glass and make it shatter. This killing disruption was called electroporation, and led to the cells immediate malfunction and death. The kill frequency Rife termed the MOR or mortal oscillatory rate. As well as bacteria and viruses, it worked against cancer cells. It was 100% effective. Frequency can also be used to give the cell the energy is needs to repair and or regenerate itself.

My equipment

The SSQ-2F Excalibur is a replica of Dr. Rife's #5 machine which generated more 
spontaneous remissions in clinical use than any other Rife instrument. 
Designed to be run from FreX and offers researchers’ state of the art of Dr. 
Rife's #5 Machine. I also carry the best equipment from Pulsed Technologies. I have worked with their scientists in Europe and the US. I have years of clinical experience

I use clinically tested frequencies sets, including the work of DNA frequency scientist Charlene  Boehm. Call for pricing.

image.png.56a6dcf47ff004b7ad3aa5049c0b2f45.png

 

 

image.png.f0e4406d5f13e3320b823a4da5545b84.png

 

Contact: Kim Larson, Naturopathic practitioner              kimlarsonnd@gmail.com

 

Location: Alto Boquete, Panama                                        Phone: 6133-7476

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking that if cancer was cured 100% with this machine 80 years ago, we wouldn't have our current cancer mortality rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncle Doug said:

I'm thinking that if cancer was cured 100% with this machine 80 years ago, we wouldn't have our current cancer mortality rate.

Wikipedia reports the following:

"In 1994, the American Cancer Society reported that Rife machines were being sold in a "pyramid-like, multilevel marketing scheme". A key component in the marketing of Rife devices has been the claim, initially put forward by Rife himself, that the devices were being suppressed by an establishment conspiracy against cancer "cures".[5] Although 'Rife devices' are not registered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and have been linked to deaths among cancer sufferers, the Seattle Times reported that over 300 people attended the 2006 Rife International Health Conference in Seattle, where dozens of unregistered devices were sold".[8]

Edited by Bonnie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bonnie said:

Wikipedia reports the following:

"In 1994, the American Cancer Society reported that Rife machines were being sold in a "pyramid-like, multilevel marketing scheme". A key component in the marketing of Rife devices has been the claim, initially put forward by Rife himself, that the devices were being suppressed by an establishment conspiracy against cancer "cures".[5] Although 'Rife devices' are not registered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and have been linked to deaths among cancer sufferers, the Seattle Times reported that over 300 people attended the 2006 Rife International Health Conference in Seattle, where dozens of unregistered devices were sold".[8]

While no one in this forum has said this, I've always had to grimace at people who think there is a cure for "cancer", as if one thing will cure all kinds of different cancers.  But, I know they're nuts when they think governments or pharmaceutical companies try to suppress the "cure", for sinister or financial reasons.  There's frankly more money to be made in cures than in suppressing cures!  

Edited by Palo Alto Jo
Typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Palo Alto Jo said:

 they think governments of pharmaceutical companies try to suppress the "cure", for sinister or financial reasons. There's frankly more money to be made in cures than in suppressing cures!  

Thank you! There are plenty of scientists working for non profits on cancer research without a financial motive.  And anyone who comes up with a cure for any cancer will be a world wide success and make crap loads of money. The reality is that scientists are very slowly starting to use the word "cure" for a handful of cancers like thyroid, testicular and a few others. These cancers have recovery rates in the high 90 percentiles now. If I'm not mistaken, even early diagnosed breast cancer has a recovery rate in the 90% range.

Science is amazing!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Palo Alto Jo said:

While no one in this forum has said this, I've always had to grimace at people who think there is a cure for "cancer", as if one thing will cure all kinds of different cancers.  But, I know they're nuts when they think governments of pharmaceutical companies try to suppress the "cure", for sinister or financial reasons.  There's frankly more money to be made in cures than in suppressing cures!  

Dear PAJ,

There is a lot of food for thought in your reply. Thank you.

Several year’s ago I finally absorbed the FACT that there are many, many different kinds of cancers. My conclusion from that awakening included awareness that lumping all cancers into one bucket is doing everyone a disservice, maybe even damaging them.

Is the American Cancer Society really working on a cure for all cancers? I hope so, but have my doubts. Read what Wikipedia says about the ACS:

Quote

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is a nationwide voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer. Established in 1913, the society is organized into eleven geographical divisions of both medical and lay volunteers operating in more than 900 offices throughout the United States.[2][3] Its home office is located in the American Cancer Society Center in Atlanta, Georgia. The ACS publishes the journals CancerCA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Cancer Cytopathology.[4]

The ACS is organized geographically. Huh??? Shouldn’t it be organized based on biophysics or cytopathologies?

Your last sentence was something that I never considered before. I need time to think about that statement. Wow!

Not sure what the the real solution will be, but I do hope it comes soon.

Edited by BD
dang it all, another typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thank you! There are plenty of scientists working for non profits on cancer research without a financial motive.  And anyone who comes up with a cure for any cancer will be a world wide success and make crap loads of money. The reality is that scientists are very slowly starting to use the word "cure" for a handful of cancers like thyroid, testicular and a few others. These cancers have recovery rates in the high 90 percentiles now. If I'm not mistaken, even early diagnosed breast cancer has a recovery rate in the 90% range.

Science is amazing!

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but it has crossed my mind that with so much money being made by providing cancer treatment, the incentive to find cures becomes diminished.

Edited by Keith Woolford
  • Sad 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Keith Woolford said:

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but it has crossed my mind that with so much money being made by providing cancer treatment, the incentive to find cures becomes diminished.

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-12-29 at 9.27.01 AM.png

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, we use a Rife machine at home with some regularity. Perhaps it's the "placebo" effect, but we do record positive changes with respect to arthritis pain and vascular health. The effects seem to wear off after a while, but a repeat treatment usually produces the same good result. We think electromagnetic frequencies are likely to have fewer undesirable side effects than the ingestion of chemicals. But we are good customers at the pharmacy as well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Siempre Soluciones said:

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-12-29 at 9.27.01 AM.png

But, a cure would be even more profitable, no?   Look how much money is made off of treatments.  No one should think a cure would be free.  It would be a godsend to so many families, for those with childhood cancers alone it would be a huge blessing.  But real, professional cancer specialists are working on this, and they aren't getting rich working on solutions.  They are simply working on leading edge treatments or cures.   And are very successful in many types of cancer now.   All treatments are costly, but people would sure be willing to pay more for a cure than a treatment.  A prevention?  Even more.  But, it will be several "cures", as you can't possibly treat brain tumors the same way as melanoma or leukemia.  Different type of cells are involved, and I'm betting they need different types of cures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BD said:

Dear PAJ,

There is a lot of food for thought in your reply. Thank you.

Several year’s ago I finally absorbed the FACT that there are many, many different kinds of cancers. My conclusion from that awakening included awareness that lumping all cancers into one bucket is doing everyone a disservice, maybe even damaging them.

Is the American Cancer Society really working on a cure for all cancers? I hope so, but have my doubts. Read what Wikipedia says about the ACS:

The ACS is organized geographically. Huh??? Shouldn’t it be organized based on biophysics or cytopathologies?

Your last sentence was something that I never considered before. I need time to think about that statement. Wow!

Not sure what the the real solution will be, but I do hope it comes soon.

I think they ACS is more into collecting money and then deciding who gets grant money if they are working on something promising.  Not sure the ACS does any of its own research at all.  Perhaps they also have a few facilities, but mostly they work with universities and other institutions.  That would explain why it is divided geographically.  They are looking for institutions all over the U. S. (even world?) that may be deserving of the money they raise.  Some money goes to paying patients to participate in studies, which again could come out of regional offices instead of say, Washington, DC.  I kind of like spreading it around versus too centralized in some place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quackery.jpg.dc875ba82f019c514c36d203cb20ecd5.jpgThe Newslady always winces a little when she sends out one of these alternative medicine things.

However, in the final analysis it's up to the customer do separate quackery from reality.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Siempre Soluciones said:

 

 

 

Screen Shot 2017-12-29 at 9.27.01 AM.png

You think they came up with the polio vaccine so they could lose money? How about whopping cough? Typhoid? Malaria? I can go on. 

Personally, I'd pay a hell of a lot more money to be cured than go through rounds of treatments only to extend my life. 

Edited by Jim and Judi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jim Bondoux said:

FWIW, we use a Rife machine at home with some regularity. Perhaps it's the "placebo" effect, but we do record positive changes with respect to arthritis pain and vascular health. The effects seem to wear off after a while, but a repeat treatment usually produces the same good result. We think electromagnetic frequencies are likely to have fewer undesirable side effects than the ingestion of chemicals. But we are good customers at the pharmacy as well....

I have a Rife  machine also.  The history of Doctor Royal Rife and the use of Electromagnetic frequency on the human body is fascinating.  I'm a nurse and many years ago was in communication with quite a few folks with Lyme disease.  They were not having much luck getting treatment and if they received  treatment...success with it.  Anyway that's how I learned about Rife .  My study of it was so convincing I bought a machine and it was not cheap.

The advances in alternative medicine today are encouraging.  Another VERY interesting study is the use of full spectrum light emission on red blood cells.  FDA has approved it's use for T cell lymphoma in the USA.  It's used extensively in Israel as well as in Russia , and I believe Germany.  A book entitled Into the Light by Dr. Wm Campbell Douglass is a good read and is still sold on Amazon. ( paperback and Kindle)   Dr Douglass was one of the first in the states to study  Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation   and other alternative modalities.  He retired to Panama and passed away several years ago.  I had read his newsletters for a decade before retiring here.  A bright man and a free thinker. He saw through the pharmaceutical industry's control on medicine as did Dr Royal Rife.

Edited by Brundageba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2017 at 2:35 PM, Jim and Judi said:

You think they came up with the polio vaccine so they could lose money? How about whopping cough? Typhoid? Malaria? I can go on. 

Personally, I'd pay a hell of a lot more money to be cured than go through rounds of treatments only to extend my life. 

Adding to this, I found on emedicineonline the following, which I believe to be a good summary of the myth and the reality:

Cancer Myths and Reality

MYTH: Progress for people with advanced cancer has been so slow because there is a conspiracy between the American Medical Association and drug companies. Some people with cancer and their families think doctors are keeping the cure for cancer under wraps so that money can be made from cancer treatments.

REALITY: Does any reasonable person think that a cure for cancer would remain secret for long? Obviously not.

  • Now, let's think about this for a moment. Nurses get cancer. Pharmacists get cancer. Physicians get cancer, as do family members of these professionals. With the Internet and high-speed modems, it is inconceivable that some scientist laboring in isolation in a bunker someplace will have a cure for this problem.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was probably inspired by stats from a few years ago that showed about $100 billion being spent annually on cancer treatment in the U.S. as opposed to only about $5 billion on research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of treatment is what it is. I'm sure you're not suggesting that less should be spent in saving lives. Cancer is widespread, and treatment in the U.S. is expensive. It doesn't surprise me that it outpaces the cost of research.

Edited by Bonnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bonnie said:

I'm sure you're not suggesting that less should be spent in saving lives.

The profit on $100 billion of cancer treatment is probably at least 3 or 4 times that which is being expended on research. It’s become an industry and not all participants have altruistic motives.

Spending more on cancer research seems appropriate to me. 

Edited by Keith Woolford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comparison is valid only if money for both treatment and research come from the same source . They share some sources, but certainly not all.

Treatment for cancer is overpriced in the U.S. largely because doctors and hospitals are overpaid compared to the rest of the world. .This is deplorable and makes a case for universal healthcare, but it in no way proves that health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry are in cahoots to suppress a cure for cancer. If this were the case, cures for a myriad other diseases also would have been suppressed. Instead, we now have vaccinations and treatments unheard of as little as a decade ago. There have been significant advances in the treatment of many diseases which, if indeed the doctors were colluding with the drug companies, would not have transpired. Think AIDS, cervical cancer, shingles, pneumonia, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonnie, I’m not suggesting that there’s collusion, but I do think that ‘big money’ goes where it will earn immediate, predictable profits. On the other hand, the return on investment in research is long term and risky. 

That’s just a layman’s perception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith Woolford said:

 not all participants have altruistic motives

I have to mostly disagree, Keith. The research scientists I worked with made an average of $60k per year at PhD level! They worked weekends and nights if their experiments required it. Often, they were stuck in labs pipetting for hours under a hood. They were the most passionate people I have ever worked with. I witnessed their excitement and joy when products went into clinical trials and finally to market after years of painstaking work. These people were of the highest standard and would never compromise their work. I've seen experiments scrapped because of one small misstep. These are the research people and their motives were always altruistic.

Of course it's an industry, what non profit has the kind of money it takes to bring a product to market? The cost of clinical trials is astronomical. Abiding by FDA and other regulatory agencies is costly. What's the alternative? Abandon clinical trials? Ditch the FDA? These are all the things that help to be sure the drugs we use are as safe as possible. 

Bonnie is right, we could help lowers cost by streamlining our healthcare and insurance systems. The pharmaceutical industry gets a bad wrap. Are there issues, yes. But they are few in comparison to the lifesaving products they bring us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Keith Woolford said:

Bonnie, I’m not suggesting that there’s collusion, but I do think that ‘big money’ goes where it will earn immediate, predictable profits. On the other hand, the return on investment in research is long term and risky. 

That’s just a layman’s perception.

This doesn't make sense because big money in pharma is never immediate. It's many years, perhaps decades, of research away. And it's never predicable. I've seen products reach phase 3 trials and never be approved. Not one penny of profit for millions spent. It's not unusual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that cancer treatment involves more than the use of pharmaceuticals, but as I said, I have a layman’s perception here.

At the end of the day, I do believe that more resources need to be directed at research and the passionate scientists in the lab.  I don’t think that could be a bad thing.

Edited by Keith Woolford
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those with a desire to better understand cancer in all its manifestations and a history of cancer research, I highly recommend the Pulitizer Prize winning book The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, a cellular oncologist. The author has the unique talent of being able to marry scientific expertise to narrative brilliance. I couldn't put it down, and I've read it twice. You can explore a bit more about the book here: http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/siddhartha-mukherjee

 

Edited by Bonnie
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...