Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Hi , I thought this too, but in doing research in which Roy Rife actually studied the cancer virus under the microscope in the 1920's, 30's and beyond, he discovered that the cancer cell or " BX " as he labeled the virus, was actually anaerobic and oxygen would not do anything to kill the virus off nor would the alkaline/acid basis. He also was able to see that x-ray or infra-red didn't make a difference either. I am not sure where Jim H got his information on the oxygen and cancer, I think it might have been a hypothesis. But, Rife's research was sent to the sonian and other noteworthy research institutes as conclusive evidence. I have read on the blogs and seen youtubes where MMS has helped cancer in folks, but I am not sure if it is because of this theory or something else maybe. > > I think the reason cancer is affected by MMS is 2 fold. > > First the cleaning out of your body of the bad bacteria virus and assorted other baddies allows your immune system to go to work on the cancer cells. > > Also And the part I am not quite clear about, the oxidative abilities of the MMS itself seek out positively charged cancer cells and oxidize them. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Its been a while since I delved into the book . > > IN NC > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 On 9/1/2009, jgthayer81 (jgthayer81@...) wrote: > I thought this too, but in doing research in which Roy Rife actually > studied the cancer virus under the microscope in the 1920's, 30's and > beyond, he discovered that the cancer cell or " BX " as he labeled the > virus, was actually anaerobic and oxygen would not do anything to > kill the virus off nor would the alkaline/acid basis. I think you are confused... oxidation is NOT the same thing as 'extra oxygen'. -- Best regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 please explain the difference for those of fuzzy brains.lol laura IN NC > > I thought this too, but in doing research in which Roy Rife actually > > studied the cancer virus under the microscope in the 1920's, 30's and > > beyond, he discovered that the cancer cell or " BX " as he labeled the > > virus, was actually anaerobic and oxygen would not do anything to > > kill the virus off nor would the alkaline/acid basis. > > I think you are confused... > > oxidation is NOT the same thing as 'extra oxygen'. > > -- > > Best regards, > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 On 1 Sep 2009 at 16:39, jgthayer81 wrote about : Subject : [ ] Re: ca > Hi , > > I thought this too, but in doing research in which Roy Rife actually > studied the cancer virus under the microscope in the 1920's, 30's and > beyond, he discovered that the cancer cell or " BX " as he labeled the > virus, was actually anaerobic and oxygen would not do anything to kill the > virus off nor would the alkaline/acid basis. He also was able to see that > x-ray or infra-red didn't make a difference either. I am not sure where > Jim H got his information on the oxygen and cancer, I think it might have > been a hypothesis. But, Rife's research was sent to the sonian and > other noteworthy research institutes as conclusive evidence. I have read > on the blogs and seen youtubes where MMS has helped cancer in folks, but I > am not sure if it is because of this theory or something else maybe. > Hi jgthayer81, There is something basically incorrect in the above. Anaerobic organisms hate oxygen because it damages or kills them so they try to avoid it. Oxygen kills cancer as per research going back many, many years. Have a google at " does oxygen kill cancer " . also: In 1931 Dr. Warburg won his first Nobel Prize for proving cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen respiration in cells. He stated in an article titled The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer that " the cause of cancer is no longer a mystery, we know it occurs whenever any cell is denied 60% of its oxygen requirements. " OK, Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Jim Humble's information on MMS v Cancer was first-hand experience the way he relates it in his book. It cured melanoma in a matter of weeks. He did not offer a hypothesis as to how. It most likely has to do with its oxidative properties though. Others have been successful with ozone therapy in the same way. Obviously, both alkaline and basic treatments have been effective in cancer treatment. Simoncini has used and advocated bicarb of soda effectively while others have used HCL effectively. If Royal Rife concluded that these modalities were ineffective, he was incorrect. Of course, Rife's frequencies were quite effective also and were totally noninvasive and very elegant. You have to appreciate what he did and wonder why it has not caught on since the court cases were concluded with the AMA. jgthayer81 wrote: Hi , I thought this too, but in doing research in which Roy Rife actually studied the cancer virus under the microscope in the 1920's, 30's and beyond, he discovered that the cancer cell or "BX" as he labeled the virus, was actually anaerobic and oxygen would not do anything to kill the virus off nor would the alkaline/acid basis. He also was able to see that x-ray or infra-red didn't make a difference either. I am not sure where Jim H got his information on the oxygen and cancer, I think it might have been a hypothesis. But, Rife's research was sent to the sonian and other noteworthy research institutes as conclusive evidence. I have read on the blogs and seen youtubes where MMS has helped cancer in folks, but I am not sure if it is because of this theory or something else maybe. > > I think the reason cancer is affected by MMS is 2 fold. > > First the cleaning out of your body of the bad bacteria virus and assorted other baddies allows your immune system to go to work on the cancer cells. > > Also And the part I am not quite clear about, the oxidative abilities of the MMS itself seek out positively charged cancer cells and oxidize them. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Its been a while since I delved into the book . > > IN NC > Attachment: vcard [not shown] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2009 Report Share Posted September 4, 2009 Perhaps it is something as simple as the oxygen axis takes care of the daily chores for the immune system, allowing the standard immune system to do what it needs to do where oxygen cannot reach (impermeable cells?). It seems anecdotally to me that MMS is less effective in those that have a compromised immune system (eg. After chemo). Much like (as opposed to) when someone does a fast and the immune system is able to do repairs it hasn’t been able to do in decades, I suspect that a fast in combination with an oxygen therapy would prove more effective. I started thinking this way after reading about the GC-Maf/NK therapy taken from healthy blood samples. Regards B __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4394 (20090904) __________The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.http://www.eset.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.