This Device Cured Cancer, written out of history by big pharma.

HandoLogan

Medical treatments today often involve the use of medications mostly made from various chemicals or chemical extractions from plants. It would be fair to say that modern pharmaceuticals don’t necessarily represent a natural treatment and they are very targeted in how they work. We have all seen the TV ads for pharmaceutical drugs that end with a long, quickly spoken list of side effects that can often be worse than the issue someone is treating to begin with. It is important to note that these aren’t really side effects but are instead the effects of the drug. We often don’t look at it this way, but when you do, you begin to realize the absurdity that goes along with many modern treatments for illness.

The technology this article will discuss takes a very different approach to treating the body. Royal Rife machines have been around for many years and it didn’t take long for them to be cast aside negatively by modern medicine when the results began pouring in.



Picture-12It was in 1920 that Royal Rife first identified the human cancer virus using the world’s most powerful microscope. After identifying and isolating the virus, he decided to culture it on salted pork. At the time this was a very good method for culturing a virus. He then took the culture and injected it into 400 rats which as you might expect, created cancer in all 400 rats very quickly. The next step for Rife is where things took an interesting turn. He later found a frequency of electromagnetic energy that would cause the cancer virus to diminish completely when entered into the energy field. The great discovery led Rife to create a device that could be tuned to output the frequency that would destruct the cancer. He was then able to treat the cancer within both rats and patients who were within close proximity of the device.
By 1934, the device began getting much more attention. The University of Southern California appointed a Special Medical Research Committee to further look at and study the device and it’s claims. 16 terminal cancer patients from Pasadena County Hospital were brought to Rife’s San Diego Laboratory for treatment. This committee was made up of doctors and pathologists who were assigned to examine the patients if they were still alive in 90 days. The 3 months of treatment went by and the Committee concluded that 14 of the 16 patients had been completely cured of cancer. The remaining 2 patients were exposed to the device for another 4 weeks after a few adjustments were made. Both were cured after the 4 weeks. The amazing results were a surprise to many, as no one knew what to expect out of frequency based medical treatment. On November 20, 1931, Royal Rife was honored with a banquet billed as “The End To All Diseases” at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson by 44 of the nations most respected medical authorities.




The device began receiving flack in 1939 and almost all distinguished doctors and scientists close to the device began denying that they had ever met Rife and saw results with his device. The complete reversal was due to pressure from drug companies who were being threatened by the device’s potential. Interestingly, on the night of the press conference where Dr. Milbank Johnson was going to reveal the results of Rife’s study in 1934, he was fatally poisoned and his notes and papers were “lost.” Along with that, a failed attempt by drug companies to purchase the device from Rife resulted in his labs being destroyed by arson. If that wasn’t enough, Dr. Nemes who had been duplicating Rife’s work, was mysteriously killed in a fire and his research material was all destroyed as well. Finally, the Burnett Lab, which had been validating all of Rife’s work, was also destroyed in a fire. Sure seems like the pharmaceutical industry may have been involved in this. But what about Rife? By 1971 Royal Rife died by an “accidental” lethal dose of Valium and alcohol at Grossmont hospital.
Rife machines do still exist today and are used in some medical practices but they are not FDA approved and are sometimes still seized by the FDA. They are often sold under the label of ‘veterinary devices

Read More At http://www.getholistichealth.com/38978/this-device-cured-cancer-but-big-pharma-destroyed-it/

Torakx

Thanks for that. Very good Ct

http://www.rife.org/
Looks like a decent collection of info here.

I think i might have seen this covered in a documentary a few years ago.
But some other scientist with a handheld device that sent an electrical frequency into your body to kill bacteria and parasites etc.
Maybe a copy of Rife's work.

Heres a pdf from that site. http://www.rife.org/john%20marsh/rifeinstrumenthistory.pdf

Oh, maybe this is why royalty lives so long

jh79

Gave me a good laugh when i read up on it as I'd never heard of it before.As with all medical CT's suitably vague.

Unfortunately a few gullible people have died because of this , desperate / stupid enough to fall for this nonsense and ceased using actual medicine.

Torakx

How do you know for sure this technique can't possibly work? Please share your info.
Also are all these mysterious deaths actually lies? Maybe.. I haven't had time to lok into this.

vixdname

Complete Bo***x.

Cancer is not a virus in the 1st place, it is a genetic mutation that occurs in a cell that causes it to have uncontrolled cell division.

These same genetic mutations happen all the time within our bodies but fortunately dont usually result in a cancer.

Cancer is a disease that is directly related to genetic mutations, the same mutations that have enabled evolution to occur over the millions of years life has been on this Earth.

Its not always understood why these mutations occur but in certain types of cancer it is seen to be caused by issues like for example HPV virus infection, which in some individuals, if untreated can cause genetic mutations and cause cervical cancer.

Another example would be known carcinogenic substances, these are substances that are know to cause genetic mutations resulting in uncontrolled cell division when ingested are absorbed into the body.

This is why some Chemotherapy courses result in hair loss, these drugs are designed to attack and destroy any cells within the body that divide quickly, like hair cells for example and help target the uncontrolled cell division that is a cancerous tumour.

This is also why radiation can cause Cancer, because it can destroy genetic material within the cells in our bodies and again start the process of uncontrolled cell division, thats why its ironic that they blast some tumours with high levels of radiation to try and kill them.
They may be successful in killing the target tumour but as a side effect cause another cancer to start because of the high radiation dosage administered to the patient.

There is another theory out there by some "DOCTOR" who states that cancer is a fungus - He has gotten poor people who have cancer to buy into this tripe in the belief that he is correct in his findings and that he will be able to cure them.

More BO***X

Torakx

"Its not always understood why these mutations occur but in certain types of cancer it is seen to be caused by issues like for example HPV virus infection, which in some individuals, if untreated can cause genetic mutations and cause cervical cancer."
Thanks for the info. I didn't know of any virus that could cause cancer.
If you killed such a virus would the mutation continue once it had started?

Also if anyone can get info on these deaths I would be interested to know if they happened as reported. Did those labs go up in flames? Did Rife die of an overdose? IIRC that was what I read.

jh79

Torakx wrote: »

"Its not always understood why these mutations occur but in certain types of cancer it is seen to be caused by issues like for example HPV virus infection, which in some individuals, if untreated can cause genetic mutations and cause cervical cancer."
Thanks for the info. I didn't know of any virus that could cause cancer.
If you killed such a virus would the mutation continue once it had started?

Also if anyone can get info on these deaths I would be interested to know if they happened as reported. Did those labs go up in flames? Did Rife die of an overdose? IIRC that was what I read.

Given that they never cured cancer what makes their deaths interesting? Maybe guilt played a part in the overdose ?

What's more interesting is how some people can be taken it by these CT's given the possible dire consequences.

Ps the mutation would continue

vixdname

Torakx wrote: »

"Its not always understood why these mutations occur but in certain types of cancer it is seen to be caused by issues like for example HPV virus infection, which in some individuals, if untreated can cause genetic mutations and cause cervical cancer."
Thanks for the info. I didn't know of any virus that could cause cancer.
If you killed such a virus would the mutation continue once it had started?

Also if anyone can get info on these deaths I would be interested to know if they happened as reported. Did those labs go up in flames? Did Rife die of an overdose? IIRC that was what I read.

When speaking about Cervical Cancer, once the genes from the HPV virus have infected the host cells DNA, killing the virus would have no effect on stopping the already initiated cell division occurance because its the host cells (Epithelial cells) that are dividing in an uncontrolled manner not the virus.

Have a read of the information below:

The Human papillomaviruses are a family of sexually transmitted viruses consisting of over 100 different viral strains, 40 of which are known to infect the human genital tract and 15 of which have been associated with cervical cancer. Most infections are asymptomatic, but some strains of HPV lead to the development of genital warts.
HPV contains a small, circular, double stranded DNA genome. The virus infects epithelial cells, one of the rapidly dividing cells that form the skin and mucous membranes. The virus reproduces within the host cell and when the cell dies, as part of natural cell turnover, the new virus particles (virions) are released and can infect other cells. The DNA of low-risk types of HPV remains separate from the host DNA, while high-risk forms are able to combine with (insert into) the host DNA. Insertion into the host genome is problematic because it interrupts the transcriptional regulation of the viral genes. Without this control, the viral genome is transcribed at a much higher rate. The HPV genome contains at least two genes whose protein products function as oncogenes. These genes are called E6 and E7. The E6 and E7 proteins inhibit the human tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRb, respectively. Inactivation of p53 leads to cell immortalization and inactivation of pRb leads to increased cell division. While either one of these mutations has the potential to lead to the development of cancer, the ability of HPV to inactivate both tumor suppressors further increases the efficiency of the transformation from normal to cancerous cells.

Infection with low-risk HPV strains generally produces benign lesions with a minimal chance of progression to dysplasia or cancer. However, high risk HPV strains (16, 18, 31, 33 and 35) are implicated in 99% of those diagnosed with cervical cancer. It is important to note that most women infected with high-risk strains of HPV infection will not develop cancer. The risk of developing dysplasia or cancer after HPV infection is, in part, dependent on the amount of virus present during infection and the length of time it takes to clear the infection.

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

Given that they never cured cancer what makes their deaths interesting?

"on the night of the press conference where Dr. Milbank Johnson was going to reveal the results of Rife’s study in 1934, he was fatally poisoned and his notes and papers were “lost.” Along with that, a failed attempt by drug companies to purchase the device from Rife resulted in his labs being destroyed by arson. If that wasn’t enough, Dr. Nemes who had been duplicating Rife’s work, was mysteriously killed in a fire and his research material was all destroyed as well. Finally, the Burnett Lab, which had been validating all of Rife’s work, was also destroyed in a fire. Sure seems like the pharmaceutical industry may have been involved in this. But what about Rife? By 1971 Royal Rife died by an “accidental” lethal dose of Valium and alcohol at Grossmont hospital."


So that is three possible murders. Three possible acts of arson, and 1 act of theft. All of which suggests a pattern of intentional sabotage of work in this area.


So you think all of the above (if true, I personally have no idea) is mere chance and coincidence?

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"on the night of the press conference where Dr. Milbank Johnson was going to reveal the results of Rife’s study in 1934, he was fatally poisoned and his notes and papers were “lost.” Along with that, a failed attempt by drug companies to purchase the device from Rife resulted in his labs being destroyed by arson. If that wasn’t enough, Dr. Nemes who had been duplicating Rife’s work, was mysteriously killed in a fire and his research material was all destroyed as well. Finally, the Burnett Lab, which had been validating all of Rife’s work, was also destroyed in a fire. Sure seems like the pharmaceutical industry may have been involved in this. But what about Rife? By 1971 Royal Rife died by an “accidental” lethal dose of Valium and alcohol at Grossmont hospital."


So that is three possible murders. Three possible acts of arson, and 1 act of theft. All of which suggests a pattern of intentional sabotage of work in this area.


So you think all of the above (if true, I personally have no idea) is mere chance and coincidence?

How can the fact that the above happened superceed that it is not possible they cured cancer?

Would bad things generally happen to people involved in criminality not be a more reasonable explanation?

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

How can the fact that the above happened super-seed that it is not possible they cured cancer?

Would bad things generally happen to people involved in criminality not be a more reasonable explanation?

I never said anything about superceeding anything else. I am giving my opinion on a series of criminal events which if true seem to point towards them being connected and with this coming the implication that "somebody" was trying to kill any advancement of the victims theories and research

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Would bad things generally happen to people involved in criminality not be a more reasonable explanation?

Stanley Meyer could answer that one ....... ohh no wait

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I never said anything about superceeding anything else. I am giving my opinion on a series of criminal events which if true seem to point towards them being connected and with this coming the implication that "somebody" was trying to kill any advancement of the victims theories and research

Well the victims theories and research were never going to lead to anything assuming that there was even any genuine research taking place?

The people looking to profit from this "cure" may have carried out these acts because it isn't possible the research they conducted , if at all, would back up their claims and this way they still had a product they could sell with a back story of shadowy forces trying to suppress this revolutionary new "cure" ?

I get the impression the OP believes in the "cure" part of the CT, which obviously isn't plausible.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Stanley Meyer could answer that one ....... ohh no wait

Never heard of him till now, quick wiki, if you believe the poisoning story, maybe he sold his dud to some arms dealers or criminals and they were understandably not happy about it?

Mr. Incognito

Cancer is not a virus.

Basic physiology.

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

Well the victims theories and research were never going to lead to anything assuming that there was even any genuine research taking place?

The people looking to profit from this "cure" may have carried out these acts because it isn't possible the research they conducted , if at all, would back up their claims and this way they still had a product they could sell with a back story of shadowy forces trying to suppress this revolutionary new "cure" ?

I get the impression the OP believes in the "cure" part of the CT, which obviously isn't plausible.

So we are in agreement then that that this series of possible criminal events taken together are suspicious?

Leaving aside whether this "cure" is effective or not it appears possible that "someone" for some reason was prepared to go to great lengths to prevent this work to take off.

Who would want to prevent a cure for cancer being released? I can think of two groups. The medical industry and eugenicists. This was a time when racist, imperialist attitudes were the norm amongst the elite, eugenics was quite popular was the same time as Sanger and Planned Parenthood and so on.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So we are in agreement then that that this series of possible criminal events taken together are suspicious?

Leaving aside whether this "cure" is effective or not it appears possible that "someone" for some reason was prepared to go to great lengths to prevent this work to take off.

Who would want to prevent a cure for cancer being released? I can think of two groups. The medical industry and eugenicists. This was a time when racist, imperialist attitudes were the norm amongst the elite, eugenics was quite popular was the same time as Sanger and Planned Parenthood and so on.

There is no ambiguity regarding this "cure".

Only paid attention to the science part,

The fact that wherever the op got this theory from proposes that cancer was cured makes me doubt that any of it is true.

If the op presented the truth that the cure was a fraud but given the era it quite possibly caused a stir then the rest of the CT would be more believable but I suspect there are further holes in the story.

Even in the 1930's they would have known cancer wasn't a virus??

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

There is no ambiguity regarding this "cure".

Only paid attention to the science part,

The fact that wherever the op got this theory from proposes that cancer was cured makes me doubt that any of it is true.

If the op presented the truth that the cure was a fraud but given the era it quite possibly caused a stir then the rest of the CT would be more believable but I suspect there are further holes in the story.

Even in the 1930's they would have known cancer wasn't a virus??

We appear to be having two seperate discussions. I know nothing of this "miracle" device nor it's effectiveness though obviously have deep, deep reservations about it.

What I do know is that the cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which means there are a multi-billion amount of reasons to suppress a cure. I also know that eugenicists would see the benefit of a mass-killer as means of keeping population numbers down. So there are two vested interests with a motive for suppressing any POTENTIAL cure for cancer.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We appear to be having two seperate discussions. I know nothing of this "miracle" device nor it's effectiveness though obviously have deep, deep reservations about it.

What I do know is that the cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which means there are a multi-billion amount of reasons to suppress a cure. I also know that eugenicists would see the benefit of a mass-killer as means of keeping population numbers down. So there are two vested interests with a motive for suppressing any POTENTIAL cure for cancer.

The problem you have here is that the "cancer industry" , as you put it, are experts in this area of research, they can spot bullsh*t quite easily. The people who come up with these CT's obviously have no clue of even the basics.

How many cancer cures have we had in this forum 6 , 7? If the guy who came up with the colloidal silver nonsense died in a strange event it wouldn't change the fact that his cure was a fraud, and I wouldn't suspect shadowy "Big Pharma" agents either because the Big Pharma researchers, rather than seeing the latest quack cure as a threat, would be sitting there shaking their heads in disbelief that a small minority of people exist out there that fall for these ridiculous miracle cures.

Beano

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We appear to be having two seperate discussions. I know nothing of this "miracle" device nor it's effectiveness though obviously have deep, deep reservations about it.

What I do know is that the cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which means there are a multi-billion amount of reasons to suppress a cure. I also know that eugenicists would see the benefit of a mass-killer as means of keeping population numbers down. So there are two vested interests with a motive for suppressing any POTENTIAL cure for cancer.

Exactly how big was the cancer industry in the 1930's? There was no chemotherapy then. Invasive surgery was probably the best bet. And even that probably killed as many as it saved. Just trying to get an idea of the forces aligned against this Rife guy.

And how does eugenics comes into it? Surely eugenics concerns itself with the genetic quality of the human population. How does the existence of cancer help with that? Or are you saying that cancer only affects those with pure genetics?

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

The problem you have here is that the "cancer industry" , as you put it, are experts in this area of research, they can spot bullsh*t quite easily.

Really? Like Dr Morris Fishbein, who was editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association, who would have us believe that "Tobacco in Moderation Doesn't Shorten Life"

The very same Fishbein who ended up working as a c
onsultant for a tobacco company?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563588/

Are these the "experts" you want me to accept uncritically?

jh79 wrote: »

The people who come up with these CT's obviously have no clue of even the basics.

I believe that both men mentioned in the OP who intended to study and advance the work done in this area, who apparently both died in suspicious circumstances and both having their facilities and records destroyed were medical doctors and men of science.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Like Dr Morris Fishbein, who was editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association, who would have us believe that "Tobacco in Moderation Doesn't Shorten Life"

The very same Fishbein who ended up working as a c
onsultant for a tobacco company?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563588/

Are these the "experts" you want me to accept uncritically?


I believe that both men mentioned in the OP who intended to study and advance the work done in this area, who apparently both died in suspicious circumstances and both having their facilities and records destroyed were medical doctors and men of science.

Look at the thread title , they didn't cure cancer the theory behind the cure doesn't wash. Whether they could of known this at the time i don't know . But the valium overdose happened in the 70's when they definitely knew this was a fraud and therefore no threat to big pharma.

Advance what exactly? The made up "cure"? Do you mean try and make their fraudulent claims appear more plausible?

This CT can't work without a credible threat to "big pharma" are you saying you believe this was a credible threat?

jh79

Tbh i don't really care what happened to them, the bottom line is they never cured cancer, big pharma has nothing to suppress. This can be added to the surprisingly long list of ridiculous cancer "cures" bandied about by the CT community.

DanWall

They will never find a cure for cancer, there is too much money being made with charities, and people employed in research. They need to look at prevention and diet not cures. The heads of Monsanto are in collusion with the FDA:


(NaturalNews) The one man who may be responsible for more food related illnesses and deaths than anyone in history, Michael R. Taylor, has just been promoted from US Food Safety Czar to Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA, a position which would enable the giant biotech company Monsanto to silently and legally feed cancer causing vegetables to every living person who is not 100% strictly organic.

President Obama has appointed the former Monsanto Vice President and lobbyist Michael R. Taylor to the throne. This is the same man who was Food Safety Czar for the FDA when Genetically Modified Organisms were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is like putting a terrorist in charge of the world's food supply. What will the cancer numbers look like in 2016?


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html#ixzz2ujPoSTHI


The same has happened with aspartamine, which is a sweetener in diet drinks etc.

jh79

DanWall wrote: »

They will never find a cure for cancer, there is too much money being made with charities, and people employed in research. They need to look at prevention and diet not cures. The heads of Monsanto are in collusion with the FDA:


(NaturalNews) The one man who may be responsible for more food related illnesses and deaths than anyone in history, Michael R. Taylor, has just been promoted from US Food Safety Czar to Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the FDA, a position which would enable the giant biotech company Monsanto to silently and legally feed cancer causing vegetables to every living person who is not 100% strictly organic.

President Obama has appointed the former Monsanto Vice President and lobbyist Michael R. Taylor to the throne. This is the same man who was Food Safety Czar for the FDA when Genetically Modified Organisms were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is like putting a terrorist in charge of the world's food supply. What will the cancer numbers look like in 2016?

The same has happened with aspartamine, which is sweetener and is in diet drinksetc.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html#ixzz2ujPoSTHI

You honestly take natural news seriously?

Brown Bomber

Beano wrote: »

Exactly how big was the cancer industry in the 1930's? There was no chemotherapy then. Invasive surgery was probably the best bet. And even that probably killed as many as it saved. Just trying to get an idea of the forces aligned against this Rife guy.

I don't know exactly how developed the cancer industry had become by this stage but I do know that by the time this device had been created there was already a generation of medical graduates from the Universities who had sold their souls for donations to become part of the cartel of the robber baron family the Rockefellers. John D Rockefeller was also by this time bankrolling the American Cancer Society.

Beano wrote: »

And how does eugenics comes into it? Surely eugenics concerns itself with the genetic quality of the human population. How does the existence of cancer help with that? Or are you saying that cancer only affects those with pure genetics?

You are correct. Eugenics was used by me way too loosely. Malthusianists or more simply advocates of population control reduction would be far more accurate.

Again, this is something the Rockefeller dynasty have been at the forefront of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI0fnRbhHFo

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

Look at the thread title , they didn't cure cancer the theory behind the cure doesn't wash. Whether they could of known this at the time i don't know . But the valium overdose happened in the 70's when they definitely knew this was a fraud and therefore no threat to big pharma.

Advance what exactly? The made up "cure"? Do you mean try and make their fraudulent claims appear more plausible?

This CT can't work without a credible threat to "big pharma" are you saying you believe this was a credible threat?

You are saying this with the benefit of hindsight and you have provided no evidence that the medical professionals behind this research engaged in any "fraud" of any description or that they even had any intention to deceive whatsoever.

What specific reasons do you have to believe that a) The people behind this didn't believe in it and b) Outsiders were convinced it couldn't possibly work?

Stavros Murphy

jh79 wrote: »

The problem you have here is that the "cancer industry" , as you put it, are experts in this area of research, they can spot bullsh*t quite easily. The people who come up with these CT's obviously have no clue of even the basics.

How many cancer cures have we had in this forum 6 , 7? If the guy who came up with the colloidal silver nonsense died in a strange event it wouldn't change the fact that his cure was a fraud, and I wouldn't suspect shadowy "Big Pharma" agents either because the Big Pharma researchers, rather than seeing the latest quack cure as a threat, would be sitting there shaking their heads in disbelief that a small minority of people exist out there that fall for these ridiculous miracle cures.

The Cancer industry is collecting money and running charities since I'm old enough to be aware anyway, for very little progress as it happens. Fundraising has become an industry in itself. A big one. T'would be killing the golden goose to actually develop a full treatment. Not to mention all the oncologists that cream it in daily. And the pharma companies. I'd say someone shouting "Eureka, I've cracked it!" would be as popular as a dose of the clap.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are saying this with the benefit of hindsight and you have provided no evidence that the medical professionals behind this research engaged in any "fraud" of any description or that they even had any intention to deceive whatsoever.

What specific reasons do you have to believe that a) The people behind this didn't believe in it and b) Outsiders were convinced it couldn't possibly work?

Given that the op claims a cure i have serious doubts that the entire CT happened as described .

jh79

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

The Cancer industry is collecting money and running charities since I'm old enough to be aware anyway, for very little progress as it happens. Fundraising has become an industry in itself. A big one. T'would be killing the golden goose to actually develop a full treatment. Not to mention all the oncologists that cream it in daily. And the pharma companies. I'd say someone shouting "Eureka, I've cracked it!" would be as popular as a dose of the clap.

Given that their are many types of cancer can you not see how unlikely a cure is?

Stavros Murphy

jh79 wrote: »

Given that their are many types of cancer can you not see how unlikely a cure is?

There are many types of leaks also, yet duct tape is universal. Using that logic, I wonder if WD40 might be the answer?

Stavros Murphy

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

The Cancer industry is collecting money and running charities since I'm old enough to be aware anyway, for very little progress as it happens. Fundraising has become an industry in itself. A big one. T'would be killing the golden goose to actually develop a full treatment. Not to mention all the oncologists that cream it in daily. And the pharma companies. I'd say someone shouting "Eureka, I've cracked it!" would be as popular as a dose of the clap.

But this logic fails on 3 levels.
If there is no money in providing cures, why do these alternative medicine guys offer it, then also still make a ton of money?

If the evil pharma industry was opposed to cures because the treatments are more profitable, why did they allow polio to be eradicated and the vaccines stopped when it was?

And if incentive for profit is enough to indicate a conspiracy, why are the people who make money from an alternative cure not involved in a conspiracy?

jh79

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

There are many types of leaks also, yet duct tape is universal. Using that logic, I wonder if WD40 might be the answer?

It is this type of logic that the alt medicine prey on but to be fair all medical CT's require a certain level of ignorance among their target audience to prosper. I take it you believe in one of the so called cures out there?

The likelihood of finding a traditional pharmaceutical compound that inhibits a particular molecular target common to all cancers is slim.

Bio-pharmaceuticals offer more hope I'd imagine but you also have the issue of this molecular target possibly being present in healthy cells.

jh79

Curing cancer would still benefit big pharma greatly.

They would obviously make money on the cure itself. Then on the illnesses associated with old age as life expectancy increases due to the cure. As people get older they would more than likely require the cancer "cure" again .

Stavros Murphy

King Mob wrote: »

But this logic fails on 3 levels.
If there is no money in providing cures, why do these alternative medicine guys offer it, then also still make a ton of money?

If the evil pharma industry was opposed to cures because the treatments are more profitable, why did they allow polio to be eradicated and the vaccines stopped when it was?

And if incentive for profit is enough to indicate a conspiracy, why are the people who make money from an alternative cure not involved in a conspiracy?

Ah here, there's no need to start dragging logic into this. Fight fair.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You honestly take natural news seriously?

Stupid question regarding you're on the CT forum

How far would you get in the Christianity forum if you would swap "natural news" for the word god

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Stupid question regarding you're on the CT forum

How far would you get in the Christianity forum if you would swap "natural news" for the word god

So posters or followers of various CT's have to adhere to the word of "natural news" to be a fully fledged member of the group? Following blindly like sheep. Natural news (god) is my shepherd?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So posters or followers of various CT's have to adhere to the word of "natural news" to be a fully fledged member of the group? Following blindly like sheep. Natural news (god) is my shepherd?

No I am not saying that .... read it again

jh79

I know that in the CT forum badgering for evidence is frowned upon but i don't see anything wrong with pointing out what a joke natural news is. In fairness it would be impossible for anyone to defend that site.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I know that in the CT forum badgering for evidence is frowned upon but i don't see anything wrong with pointing out what a joke natural news is. In fairness it would be impossible for anyone to defend that site.

Ahh come on .. even when evidence is presented its not accepted by people opposing a CT.. fluoride topic as an example and recently the 9/11 discussion as well. To much a case of "easy pickings" but maybe feedback would be a better place for that discussion

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Ahh come on .. even when evidence is presented its not accepted by people opposing a CT.. fluoride topic as an example and recently the 9/11 discussion as well. To much a case of "easy pickings" but maybe feedback would be a better place for that discussion

What natural news provides cannot be described as evidence to be fair. It could be mistaken as a CT parody website ( does one exist?)

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

What natural news provides cannot be described as evidence to be fair. It could be mistaken as a CT parody website ( does one exist?)

Wouldn't it better for all concerned if you addressed the point rather than attacking the source?

This was the statement:

The heads of Monsanto are in collusion with the FDA

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

Curing cancer would still benefit big pharma greatly.

They would obviously make money on the cure itself. Then on the illnesses associated with old age as life expectancy increases due to the cure. As people get older they would more than likely require the cancer "cure" again .

Could you explain how there is more money to be made from a once-off cure vs repeated treatment and all the money that goes into finding a cure? I'm not sure how it is obvious at all.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wouldn't it better for all concerned if you addressed the point rather than attacking the source?

This was the statement:

GM food don't cause cancer so what's the conspiracy. So in reality we have a man experienced in the pharma industry getting a role in the FDA well you'd hardly put a plumber or programmer in there .

Brown Bomber

This is what I posted.

You are saying this with the benefit of hindsight and you have provided no evidence that the medical professionals behind this research engaged in any "fraud" of any description or that they even had any intention to deceive whatsoever.

What specific reasons do you have to believe that a) The people behind this didn't believe in it and b) Outsiders were convinced it couldn't possibly work?

This was your response:

jh79 wrote: »

Given that the op claims a cure i have serious doubts that the entire CT happened as described .

Not sure what the relevance is there.

Am I to take your refusal to provide the reasons requested in A and B as an inability to provide reasons?

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain how there is more money to be made from a once-off cure vs repeated treatment and all the money that goes into finding a cure? I'm not sure how it is obvious at all.

The longer we live the more medicine we require.

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is what I posted.

This was your response:

Not sure what the relevance is there.

Am I to take your refusal to provide the reasons requested in A and B as an inability to provide reasons?

No interest in what happened to them. The op says a cure for cancer is being suppressed we can say for certain this isn't the case. There was no cure to write out of history.

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

No interest in what happened to them. The op says a cure for cancer is being suppressed we can say for certain this isn't the case. There was no cure to write out of history.

Again your response has no relevance.

You asserted that the medical professionals were making "fraudelent claims", now you don't want to talk about it anymore when asked for evidence of your claim.

Now, you have been quite judgemental in your comments about "conspiracy theories", but what is your claim if not a "conspiracy theory"?

jh79

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again your response has no relevance.

You asserted that the medical professionals were making "fraudelent claims", now you don't want to talk about it anymore when asked for evidence of your claim.

Now, you have been quite judgemental in your comments about "conspiracy theories", but what is your claim if not a "conspiracy theory"?

So we all can agree they never cured cancer.

So how do we explain (assuming the op is accurate) the people who they claimed to have cured and the results of the rat study. The most likely is some sort of fraudulent activity.

The only people who could possibly gain from the fires etc were those wanting to sell this "cure".

Brown Bomber

jh79 wrote: »

So we all can agree they never cured cancer.

So how do we explain (assuming the op is accurate) the people who they claimed to have cured and the results of the rat study. The most likely is some sort of fraudulent activity.

The only people who could possibly gain from the fires etc were those wanting to sell this "cure".

Can you provide a reference that shows where they have ever claimed to have cured cancer?

Can you debunk the findings of the study on rats?

Once again, can you provide any evidence that a) This group's intentions were to deceive and b) Vested interests outside of this group could have know for a fact that their device couldn't possibly work

Can you also explain -- without resorting to conspiracy theory, or if you do at least accepting that it is conspiracy theory -- how these men apparently killing themselves and burning down their own premises benefitted them?

jh79

The title of the thread is "This device cured cancer, written out of history by big pharma"

All I am saying is that this isn't true.

Regarding the rats, we know that they couldn't of cured cancer with the device so either they messed up the animal study in such a way that it appeared to them that they "cured" cancer or they made it up.

What i put forward is just an alternative theory to the tired old "big pharma" line.

But I think as a theory it works better than the big pharma line, just so we are clear this only based what was in the OP.

We know , with hindsight that they couldn't of possibly cured cancer.
*Possibly the rat study could of given them a result that suggested a cure
*The claims that humans where cured just couldn't of happened so this is evidence of fraud.
*They were meant to produce evidence of a cure (evidence they didn't have!) and suddenly a fire destroys the non-existent evidence!
* The backers of the machine now have a conspiracy of suppression to peddle their "cure".