Rife & Cancer

June 1, 2009

HPV can cause cervical cancer in women. There are many ways to get cancer, I'm

sure.

Angie

>

> Here are a few websites with an interesting discussion of Rife and cancer:

>

> http://altered- states.net/ barry/newsletter 133/bxvirus. htm

>

> http://www.frequenc yfoundation. com/2004/ 10/more-on- rife-bxby- virus-and-

bacillus. html

>

> http://www.rife. org/crane/ cranetherapy2. html

June 1, 2009

There is much debate as to whether or not HPV triggers uterine cancer.

Essentially a lesion or wart may form that is irritating to the tissues and by

mechanical action, combined with excessive systemic dyscrasia, it is possible

that cancer may form but it is unlikely. Most HP self corrects in a short period

of time and does not remain for extended periods which is a basic requirement

for the formation of most cancers. Cancer is always the result of irritation.

If you follow the money trail, it becomes obvious as to why this ridiculous

unproven HPV vaccine and PAP smears are pushed by Big Parma. If one takes a

careful look at the data and reads opposing views about this situation, it

becomes obvious that the scare tactics are way out of bounds as the risk is

slight at best. The vaccines, however, carry a significant risk, and like most

vaccines, have not been proven to be effective and there have been many adverse

reactions. Some quite severe.

Don't trust your doctor, he wasn't trained correctly and has been relegated to

being nothing but a drug pusher. His advice may come only from the moving lips

(ie, lying) of a drug salesman. The Creator didn't make mistakes. Bypassing the

body's defenses by injecting foreign proteins into the extracellular spaces

defies logic and common sense. It is not possible to prevent disease by

vaccination. There have never any double blind studies to demonstrate that the

concept of vaccination works and there is plenty of data that indicates clearly

that it does not. The Salk polio vaccine and the oral Sabin vaccines both

contained SV-40 monkey virus and it has been found to be a major cause of

osteosarcoma and brain cancers.

BTW, polio wasn't wiped out by vaccination. It went away simultaneously in

Europe as it did in the U.S. and they didn't vaccinate their children. It exists

today only in those vaccinated against it. To hide the truth it has been renamed

as aseptic meningitis.

Carmi Hazen

>

> HPV can cause cervical cancer in women. There are many ways to get cancer, I'm

sure.

>

> Angie

>

SNIP

June 1, 2009

Dr. Flaig,

Is your purpose for belonging to this group to contradict anything positive

anyone posts concerning Rife's work?

June 1, 2009

:

The point of discussion here is not the validity of pleomorphism. I am fairly

well versed on the subject and don't need further convincing with translations

of the German publications that Kurt Olbrich was involved with.

The issue at hand is evidence, and the quality of such. When someone says that

cancer is " a virus " , or cancer " is a fungus " , or posts a photomicrograph and

says, " this is the cancer and AIDS viruses " , some of us would like a

straight-forward description and explanation of the reasons for such claims.

The claims are meaningless without the explanation. Rife clearly described the

steps he followed which led him to his conclusions regarding his cancer

organism. Dr. clearly described all the steps he took in his

research which led him to his conclusions regarding his cancer virus. Other

scientists have done the same. Even if it was later shown that these claims

were mistaken, at least we have something to go on. The claims from Kurt

Olbrich have no such supporting evidence presented. The last time we discussed

this matter, you said that Olbrich (and you) were busy with the holiday season,

and that afterward you would get some answers to

my simple request for an explanation and description of the methodology that

was followed to support the claim that the photomicrograph you posted showed

cancer and AIDS viruses. Now you're telling me that it's not your job to

explain things to me. I've also asked when we can expect to see some

photomicrographs of properly filtered virus samples. That hasn't been answered

either. You've made claims that Olbrich knows exactly how Rife's microscopes

worked, that he has replicated Rife's frequency research, and even actually

spoke to Rife himself. I've never seen any evidence presented that would make

any of these claims believable. Since Olbrich doesn't speak English, did they

speak in German? How good was Rife's German as an old man and hadn't been to

Germany in about 60 years. What did they talk about? Did Olbrich take notes?

I'm not trying to pick on you and Olbrich, but the thing that bothers me is that

we get these carrots dangled in front

of us, but never get anything of substance to bite. It would be better to not

mention something unless you're able and willing to back it up. The issue we've

been talking about is what people are willing to accept as evidence. You

haven't really presented any real evidence. The images of so-called cancer and

AIDS viruses from the Ergonom microscope do not speak for themselves. They

might speak to the performance of the microscope, but they certainly don't speak

to the validity of the assertion that we are seeing cancer and AIDS viruses.

That can only be done by describing the experiments that were performed on the

samples to establish what they are claimed to be. So far, I haven't seen any

such description. I'm not looking for any elaborate and technical details, or

any secret or proprietary information that is protected by confidentiality

agreements. Just a simple description that will give some measure of

credibility to the claims made.

Regards,

--- wrote:

> Hi ,

> First of all, I have not personally looked at Dr.

> Simoncini's work and to be honest, am not even interested -

> I have other things I need to concentrate on right now.

>

> I have spent some time looking into pleomorphism as that

> info is easily available in Germany with many publications

> on the subject (I have already listed the major doctors and

> professors) and it is not my job to present their work to

> you.

>

> How good is your German?

>

> For example, I have an excellent German language book on

> Pleomorphism here (which Kurt Olbrich submitted a lot of

> images and information for) of 584 pages published by one of

> Germany's largest scientific publishers (Haug Verlag) which

> provides excellent " evidence " on the subject, but forgive me

> if I do not have the time to translate it all into English

> for you (unless you can pay me enough that is)?

>

> If that means I have not provided enough evidence for you,

> then so be it - right now I am extremely busy with a number

> of important jobs which have a higher priority that

> satisfying your curiosity.

>

> As to the capabilities of the Ergonom microscope, I have

> presented a lot of information both here and on the

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com website. You are

> welcome to come to Germany and test it for yourself.

>

> Kurt himself is not a scientist or a doctor (his background

> is more in analysing plastics and metals) - it is Bernhard

> Muschlien who convinced him to start looking at medical

> samples back in the 70s. He is a highly regarded engineer

> (in Germany) with an excellent track record who designed and

> built a special microscope. He has worked with some of the

> best scientists in the world and he leaves the scientific

> proving to them - he provides the tools for them to do it.

>

> The images and videos he has produced speak for themselves.

> As he does not speak English, the information available in

> English is limited basically to what I and a few others have

> translated.

>

> If you can understand German, let me know and I will see

> what I can send you.

>

> Regards

>

June 1, 2009

,

I will speak to Kurt Olbrich again about these issues and see what can be done.

Regards

>

> > Hi ,

> > First of all, I have not personally looked at Dr.

> > Simoncini's work and to be honest, am not even interested -

> > I have other things I need to concentrate on right now.

> >

> > I have spent some time looking into pleomorphism as that

> > info is easily available in Germany with many publications

> > on the subject (I have already listed the major doctors and

> > professors) and it is not my job to present their work to

> > you.

> >

> > How good is your German?

> >

> > For example, I have an excellent German language book on

> > Pleomorphism here (which Kurt Olbrich submitted a lot of

> > images and information for) of 584 pages published by one of

> > Germany's largest scientific publishers (Haug Verlag) which

> > provides excellent " evidence " on the subject, but forgive me

> > if I do not have the time to translate it all into English

> > for you (unless you can pay me enough that is)?

> >

> > If that means I have not provided enough evidence for you,

> > then so be it - right now I am extremely busy with a number

> > of important jobs which have a higher priority that

> > satisfying your curiosity.

> >

> > As to the capabilities of the Ergonom microscope, I have

> > presented a lot of information both here and on the

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com website. You are

> > welcome to come to Germany and test it for yourself.

> >

> > Kurt himself is not a scientist or a doctor (his background

> > is more in analysing plastics and metals) - it is Bernhard

> > Muschlien who convinced him to start looking at medical

> > samples back in the 70s. He is a highly regarded engineer

> > (in Germany) with an excellent track record who designed and

> > built a special microscope. He has worked with some of the

> > best scientists in the world and he leaves the scientific

> > proving to them - he provides the tools for them to do it.

> >

> > The images and videos he has produced speak for themselves.

> > As he does not speak English, the information available in

> > English is limited basically to what I and a few others have

> > translated.

> >

> > If you can understand German, let me know and I will see

> > what I can send you.

> >

> > Regards

> >

>

June 1, 2009

:

You should be the one that I need to clarify Pleomorphism. Is cancer

called a virus because of its size? If so, can it morph to a size too

large to be still classified as a virus? Can it be too large to be

classified as a virus while at the same time still be capable of

exponential growth rates?

If Pleomorphism into many forms is possible, this raises the question of

the " surroundings " being much more important than the morph.

Could a cancerous cell (one that will grow exponentially in replication)

become benign if the " surroundings " were changed with diet? If so, is

the cancer killed or does it merely morph over into a " rehabilitated "

form much like a rehabilitated murderer paroled into a surroundings that

is conducive to his staying benign but also into a surroundings that,

when changed back, could again make him morph back into a murderer.

If this is the thread running though Pleomorphism, then this might

explain the success of many different cancer protocols, all of which

work with the " surroundings " in boosting the immune system, detoxifying

the body, improving the psychological outlook, changing the inside cell

potassium level and outside cell sodium levels.

Rife and many other " silver bullets " may temporarily give the body a

drop in immune load by " critter killing " but, if the " surroundings "

cannot be changed to make the cancer stop its exponential growth, it is

still sitting in a morph that can change and again start to grow

exponentially as soon as the " surroundings " is right and the immune

system cannot withstand the onslaught.

If this thread is in the correct direction, then the surroundings may be

far more important than the morph as the morph may exist all the time in

all of us just waiting for the surroundings to change so the morph can

change into one that is capable of exponential growth.

Rife is going after the morph but, could this be secondary to changing

the surroundings as killing the morph is at best, only a tiny unloading

of the immune system and a set back to the exponential growth.

Harvey in Houston

wrote:

>

> Hi ,

> First of all, I have not personally looked at Dr. Simoncini's work and

> to be honest, am not even interested - I have other things I need to

> concentrate on right now.

>

> I have spent some time looking into pleomorphism as that info is

> easily available in Germany with many publications on the subject (I

> have already listed the major doctors and professors) and it is not my

> job to present their work to you.

>

> .

>

June 1, 2009

I am in total agreement with Harvey's observations. Claude Bernard was quoted as

saying: " The microbe is nothing, the soil is everything. "

BTW: Max Gerson specifically states in his " 50 Years... " book that cancer

patients should avoid sodium bicarbonate. In fact, he italicized his statement

which was only done a few times in his book. I assume because of the sodium

which exacerbates hytropic action thus increasing edema.

I will try to contact Charlotte and ask her what she thinks about it. In Willy

Meyer's " Cancer " he mentions a quote from a doctor who found that simply keeping

a steady flow of clean water had the same neutralizing impact on a tumor as did

the various chemo substances that were experimentally being used at the time.

The action of clearing away the by-products of tissue decomposition would stop

the cancer. They also discovered that if this washing activity was kept up and

granulations thus could not form, no healing could take place.

> >

> > Hi ,

> > First of all, I have not personally looked at Dr. Simoncini's work and

> > to be honest, am not even interested - I have other things I need to

> > concentrate on right now.

> >

> > I have spent some time looking into pleomorphism as that info is

> > easily available in Germany with many publications on the subject (I

> > have already listed the major doctors and professors) and it is not my

> > job to present their work to you.

> >

> > .

> >

>

June 1, 2009

Randy,

No, my purpose is to get people to question unsubstantiated claims. For example,

many claims about Dr. Rife were actually generated by Crane and are, in my

opinion, of a dubious nature. Further, there have been a lot of con-artists

producing " Rife " machines and selling them to desperate people that someone

needs to ask " do you have any evidence of effectiveness? " When, I ask these

questions, the typical response from the crooks or true believers is to attack

the questioner to distract people because they cannot support their claims.

So, as I am sure Dr. Rife would recommend, we need to get back to using the

scientific method . Here is a simple test:

1. Diagnoses confirmed by two MD's or pathologists with cancer staging

information including tumor markers, CT or PET scans.2. Type of treatment and

protocol (list of all equipment, operating procedures, drugs, etc.)3. Duration

of treatment4. Results of treatment again confirmed by two MD's or

pathologists including tumor markers, CT or PET scans.5. The success rate if the

treatment has been performed on more than one person. This is the 3, 5 and 10

year survival rates.

Dr. Flaig

PS: In God we Trust, all others bring Data.

Subject: Re: Rife & cancer

To: Rife

Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 8:37 PM

Dr. Flaig,

Is your purpose for belonging to this group to contradict anything positive

anyone posts concerning Rife's work?

June 1, 2009

,

Thank you for your good advice! And, by the way, the pathologist on the link I

provided has 30 years of experience in the lab.

Regards,Dr. Flaig

J

> Hi Dr. Flaig,

>

> You quote the website:

> www.123hjemmeside. dk/cancer_ is_not_a_ fungus/

> but the author of that website does not even give his name,

> where he works (Denmark perhaps), or anything which even

> gives his/her qualifications. Perhaps not the most reliable

> source on the Internet.

>

> It all depends on what you are prepared to accept as

> evidence.

>

> A major part of the problem is that nearly all modern

> microscopes are incapable of viewing living viruses the size

> of the cancer virus, and that is the major reason why there

> is any doubt at all.

>

> Here in Germany, where I live, there have been a number of

> scientists who have looked into this over the years and

> determined that cancer is a virus including Dr. von Brehmer,

> Prof. Dunbar, Prof. Enderlein, Dr. Weber, Prof. von Seld,

> Dr. Sklenar, Dr. Spengler, Dr. Weber, Dr. U. Randoll, Prof.

> Dr.Dr. K.S. Zänker, etc.

>

> I personally work with Kurt Olbrich, inventor of the

> Ergonom microscope, and his microscope is capable of viewing

> living unstained viruses and he has years of experience

> looking at the cancer causing virus.

>

> His work has been published in German language

> publications, but very little of it has been translated into

> English. Kurt Olbrich's " Sanguinogramm " has been published

> in Germany (in German) and it gives highly detailed drawings

> with measurements of the " cancer virus " seen during the

> various stages of cancer. An English translation can be

> downloaded here:

> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/files/sanguinogramm.pdf

>

> Further, a video film has been released which shows this

> virus as seen by the Ergonom. " Symbiosis or Parasitism " can

> be viewed online or downloaded from here:

> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/symbiosis_or_parasitism.html

>

> I think it would go too far to start listing all their

> papers here, do a bit of research yourself on the above

> mentioned people.

>

> What we can confirm is that cancer is pleomorphic and takes

> on many states in the various stages. Kurt has extensive

> photographic and video evidence on every stage of cancer

> growth. Pleomorphism is much more accepted in Germany than

> in English speaking countries, especially as so many German

> scientists have confirmed it.

>

> I believe this is closer to the kind of answer you were

> looking for. However, it would not surprise me if the

> evidence from all those scientists is not good enough for

> you.

>

> Regards

>

> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com

June 1, 2009

I agree with . I just watched the video, " Symbiosis or Parasitism "

and I am very skeptical of the observations being made in it. It seems to me

that these learned men are simply making morphological assessments that

pleomorphism is occurring. I have no doubt that pleomorphism is legit, but I

do take issue with what is being portrayed as pleomorphic by many in the

past and in this video in particular. The true way to prove pleomorphism is

by molecular/DNA analysis. Nothing less will do. Just because it may look

like a " duck " and quack like a " duck " ---does not a duck make. For instance

the video describes common artifacts seen in most all bloods, the rod that

is ball tipped and tubules that come out of the red blood cells as being

microbes or microbe instigated. I disagree. I have personally stained these

structures with acridine orange which will stain DNA/RNA and under a

Fluorescence Microscopy, produce the tell-tell signs of DNA or RNA within.

In all cases, these structures did not stain with acridine orange and, thus,

does not contain DNA or RNA within. It should if it were a bacteria, fungi,

or virus. So to make a statement that these structures are some how

parasites seems to be to be far fetched particularly when all that seems to

have been done was classification from mere observation only.

Secondly, I must say I am not impressed with the blood images in this

video. I certainly did not see any 25,000x magnifications as advertised.

Many of the photomicrograph video frames seem to be at normal light

microscope magnifications (1000-1500x). Other frames seem to maybe be double

that size, 3000x or so, but even with the slightly larger image, I could not

really tell that there was an increase in detail acuity at such

magnifications. I was impressed with the 3-D effect,

nerve cells and heart cells, but not being familiar with these structures

under a light microscope, I cannot comment much. I did not see anything in

the video that could be classified as a " virus " . I saw several frames that

pictured what appears to be typical bacteria with movement, but no virus

size particles. It was suggested that these obvious bacteria size structures

in this video to be a product of the blood, but I would have to know more

about their methodology to guard against cross contamination or

environmental contamination to really agree with that. I know in my

primitive lab settings that blood mounts can very easily become contaminated

from outside sources. If you are doing a lot of " washings " as described in

the video, that should open up your blood mount to even more contamination

probabilities.

In conclusion, the only true way to suggest that a microbe can be

pleomorphic is that during each stage transition, its DNA/RNA is the same

and is transferred to each new form. So far, no scientific work has been

published to prove this and the work of previous classic pleomorphic

researchers such as Rife and others did not have access to the newer

molecular and DNA techniques common in today's lab to verify their claims.

doug

Re: Rife & cancer

>

> :

>

> The point of discussion here is not the validity of pleomorphism. I am

> fairly well versed on the subject and don't need further convincing with

> translations of the German publications that Kurt Olbrich was involved

> with.

>

> The issue at hand is evidence, and the quality of such. When someone says

> that cancer is " a virus " , or cancer " is a fungus " , or posts a

> photomicrograph and says, " this is the cancer and AIDS viruses " , some of

> us would like a straight-forward description and explanation of the

> reasons for such claims. The claims are meaningless without the

> explanation. Rife clearly described the steps he followed which led him

> to his conclusions regarding his cancer organism. Dr.

> clearly described all the steps he took in his research which led him to

> his conclusions regarding his cancer virus. Other scientists have done

> the same. Even if it was later shown that these claims were mistaken, at

> least we have something to go on. The claims from Kurt Olbrich have no

> such supporting evidence presented. The last time we discussed this

> matter, you said that Olbrich (and you) were busy with the holiday season,

> and that afterward you would get some answers to

> my simple request for an explanation and description of the methodology

> that was followed to support the claim that the photomicrograph you posted

> showed cancer and AIDS viruses. Now you're telling me that it's not your

> job to explain things to me. I've also asked when we can expect to see

> some photomicrographs of properly filtered virus samples. That hasn't

> been answered either. You've made claims that Olbrich knows exactly how

> Rife's microscopes worked, that he has replicated Rife's frequency

> research, and even actually spoke to Rife himself. I've never seen any

> evidence presented that would make any of these claims believable. Since

> Olbrich doesn't speak English, did they speak in German? How good was

> Rife's German as an old man and hadn't been to Germany in about 60 years.

> What did they talk about? Did Olbrich take notes? I'm not trying to pick

> on you and Olbrich, but the thing that bothers me is that we get these

> carrots dangled in front

> of us, but never get anything of substance to bite. It would be better to

> not mention something unless you're able and willing to back it up. The

> issue we've been talking about is what people are willing to accept as

> evidence. You haven't really presented any real evidence. The images of

> so-called cancer and AIDS viruses from the Ergonom microscope do not speak

> for themselves. They might speak to the performance of the microscope,

> but they certainly don't speak to the validity of the assertion that we

> are seeing cancer and AIDS viruses. That can only be done by describing

> the experiments that were performed on the samples to establish what they

> are claimed to be. So far, I haven't seen any such description. I'm not

> looking for any elaborate and technical details, or any secret or

> proprietary information that is protected by confidentiality agreements.

> Just a simple description that will give some measure of credibility to

> the claims made.

>

> Regards,

>

June 1, 2009

Dr. Flaig,

>PS: In God we Trust, all others bring Data.

Thought you might find this of interest. There

are also published papers by other authors that are available.

A link you may find of interest.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070802100748.htm

[From the upcoming BEMS conference abstracts. Dr.

Pasche is to give a Plenary lecture on June 18.

Jim Bare

P-113

AMPLITUDE-MODULATED ELECTROMAGNETIC

FIELDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER: DISCOVERY

OF TUMOR-SPECIFIC FREQUENCIES AND ASSESSMENT

OF A NOVEL THERAPEUTIC APROACH.

B. Pasche1,2, A. Barbault3,2, F. Costa4, B. Bottger5, R. Munden1, F.

Bomholt6, N. Kuster7; 1Univ of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham,

AL, USA. 2Cabinet Médical, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3Colmar, France.

4Sirio-Libanes Hospital, Oncology Center, Sao o, Brazil. 5Radiology

Associates, Danbury Hospital, Danbury, CT, USA. 6SPEAG AG,

Zurich, Switzerland. 7IT’IS, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich,

Switzerland.

We examined patients with cancer using a noninvasive biofeedback

method to identify tumor-specific frequencies. We identified a total

of 1524 frequencies ranging from 0.1 Hz to 114 kHz. Compassionate

treatment with tumor-specific frequencies was offered to 28 patients.

One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to the

adrenal gland and bones had a complete response lasting 11 months.

One patient with hormone-refractory breast cancer metastatic to liver

and bones had a partial response lasting 13.5 months. Four patients had

stable disease lasting +31.3 months (thyroid cancer), 5.1 months (nonsmall

cell lung cancer), 4.1 months (pancreatic cancer) and 4.0 months

(leiomyosarcoma).

p-128

phaSe ii STudy oF inTraBuccally-adminiSTered

ampliTude-modulaTed elecTromagneTic

FieldS in paTienTS WiTh adVanced hepa-

Tocellular carcinoma. B. Pasche1, F. Costa2, A. Cosme

de Oliveira2, R. Meirelles2, M. M. Machado2, T. Zanesco2, R. Surjan2, M.

Chammas2, M. Souza Rocha2, B. Bottger3, D. 1, F. Bomholt4, N.

Kuster5, A. Barbault6; 1Univ of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham,

AL, USA. 2Dept of Transplantation and Liver Surgery, Hospital das

Clínicas, Sao o, Brazil. 3Radiology Associates, Danbury Hospital,

Danbury, CT, USA. 4Schmid & Partner Engineering AG, Zurich,

Switzerland. 5IT’IS Foundation, Swiss Federal Inst of Tech, Zurich,

Switzerland. 6Rue de Verdun 20, Colmar, Colmar, France.

We assessed the effects of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields

administered by means of an intrabuccal spoon-shaped probe in patients

with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Three daily 60 min outpatient

treatments were administered until disease progression or death. Imaging

studies were performed every eight weeks. A total of 41 patients

were enrolled. Seventeen patients (34.1%) were progression-free for

more than 6 months. Median progression-free and overall survivals

were 4.8 months (95% CI 2.3-6.0) and 6.9 months (95 CI 4.8-11.1). As

of January 2009, four patients are alive and two patients, who are still

undergoing therapy, remain progression-free for 32.8 and 32.5 months,

respectively.

Part of his CV

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Dr. Boris Pasche is the new

director of the division of hematology/oncology

and associate director for translational research

in the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the

University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Dr.

Abraham, chairman of the UAB Department of

Medicine, and Dr. Partridge, director of

the Comprehensive Cancer Center, made the

announcement. Pasche will join UAB on Sept. 1.

Dr. Pasche is an associate professor of medicine

and director of the cancer genetics program at

the H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center

and Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern

University in Chicago. He also is the leader of

the Cancer Genes and Molecular Targeting Program

at Northwestern's Cancer Center.

Dr. Pasche received medical degrees from both the

Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the University

of Lausanne in Switzerland. He also earned a

Ph.D. from the Karolinska Institute. His

internship and medical residency were at The New

York Hospital/Cornell Medical Center and his

fellowship in hematology/oncology was at Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the New York

Hospital, Cornell University Medical College.

After completing his fellowship, Dr. Pasche

remained at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer

Center for three years and then moved to Northwestern University.

Dr. Pasche serves on the NCI Cancer Genetics study section.

June 3, 2009

The original criticism stated that consumers should ask manufacturers about

the success rates of their devices--information which is illegal for them to

gather (in the form of studies) or to publish currently. Any maker of

Rife-type devices markets his products in some way or other, whether you

like it or not. The point is to get some accurate guidance when deciding

what device to purchase, if any. By the way, the recent court case clarified

that the term " research " applies only to FDA-approved studies. So

manufacturers should stop stating that they are selling their devices for

" research purposes " unless they have permission from the FDA, which they are

not going to get.

>

> i thought the conversation was about being able to evaluate results, judge

> machines, and make some valid sense out of a stream of verbiage that flows

> by... not about being able to use claims to market products, but to give

> structure and coherency to data collected in order for DIY " researchers " to

> reach somewhat useful meaningful conclusions.

>

> > Re: Rife & cancer

> >

> > Dr. Flaig,

> >

> > I like your solution very much. I hope the moderator will take the

> > suggestion seriously and set up such a database. However I

> > would note that

> > the information is still anecdotal, simply better organized

> > and systematized

> > (respondents can even include results of medical tests if

> > they have them). I

> > am puzzled that you say it is not necessary to get the FDA or

> > AMA to agree

> > that something is effective. What about the gentleman in

> > California who was

> > just convicted by the FDA of selling unapproved devices? It

> > seems to me that

> > FDA agreement is necessary if the manufacturer wants to make " medical "

> > claims.

> >

> > Randy

>

June 3, 2009