which side of the fence are you on

  • Thread starter Thread starter yarLson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yarLson

Guest
who here believes that pharmaceutical companies are actually here to help cure our illnesses?
Who here actually believes that this money that we all donate to all these "cancer research" foundations actually goes towards finding a cure?
And finally, for now, how many of you believe that the cure for cancer is right under our nose, and that actually, there is more than one known "cure" and "somebody" is funding a massive cover up of information, and cutting the funding to anyone who is trying to research these alternatives?

These are issues that I am being faced with more and more on a personal basis and I am interested in hearing what some of you might have to say about it.
 
Well pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money, but they make money by weakening illness and eventually curing it.  While I don't know if some drugs actually require $300,000,000 in R&D, they do certainly cost many millions of dollars to produce.  If we didn't regulate such things, then perhaps they would be much cheaper to produce and would come out more frequently, hundreds or thousands of people would probably die in the process, which is usually considered an unacceptable risk.  So yeah, I think that the money, primarily, goes towards finding a cure.

The cure for cancer is like the Powerball Lottery Jackpot.<--- **EDIT:  I don't remember wtf I meant by this**  People may have been exposed to a cure for cancer, but just did not know it, or it is something you just simply can't fix.  What if we had been trying to find a cure for death? or aging?  Well we kind of have, but we still die, and we still get old; people still get cancer.  I don't think it is a cover up or consipiracy.  It is too revolting to imagine.

If you are facing these issues on a personal basis, then I suggest consulting with actual oncologists and reading textbooks on the subject.  Also, seek psychological counseling.  When the fate of a loved one, or yourself if you mean a really personal basis, hangs by a thread for an extended period of time, it will eat you alive every waking moment without help.
 
Last edited:
If you are facing these issues on a personal basis, then I suggest consulting with actual oncologists and reading textbooks on the subject.  Also, seek psychological counseling.  When the fate of a loved one, or yourself if you mean a really personal basis, hangs by a thread for an extended period of time, it will eat you alive every waking moment without help.
Click to expand...
Will do you better than polling the public.

My two cents, since you asked for them:
1. Medicine is made to cure or treat illness. The pharmaceutical industry relies on that necessity to overcharge for drugs, but medicine won't make it to market, or won't be recommended by anyone's doctor, if it doesn't have at least some credible proof of efficacy. Health care is a business that will always be in demand, so there's no reason to create false business by distributing weaker drugs or making up diseases just so you can sell sugar pills for it. Even if you did, another company would just release a legitimate one and drum you out of business.
2. Like all charities, it depends who you're dealing with. When at all possible, it's advisable to donate money directly to the source you want to receive the funding, or as close as you can get.
3. Since cancer comes in so many flavors, I doubt there's any one overarching "cure for cancer." I don't see any reason to cover up a cure for cancer -- there is a lot more to be gained, even money for the heartless businesses, by releasing such a thing. I'm very curious what reasoning anyone's giving to that theory. However, while curing cancer is out of grasp, treating cancer has improved remarkably. Again, there's a lot of variety so it depends on the details of each situation, but it's not generally a big scary death sentence like it used to be.

My father is a family physician with whom I have worked very closely, so I feel confident in saying that there are flaws to the system, mostly in costs and anything to do with for-profit health insurance, but the products of modern medicine are designed to heal you.
 
who here believes that pharmaceutical companies are actually here to help cure our illnesses?
Who here actually believes that this money that we all donate to all these "cancer research" foundations actually goes towards finding a cure?
And finally, for now, how many of you believe that the cure for cancer is right under our nose, and that actually, there is more than one known "cure" and "somebody" is funding a massive cover up of information, and cutting the funding to anyone who is trying to research these alternatives?

These are issues that I am being faced with more and more on a personal basis and I am interested in hearing what some of you might have to say about it.
Click to expand...
The two posters above me handled this pretty well.  As a medical student, I am nipping this thread in the bud before anyone spreads misinformation.

1. Pharmaceutical companies are here to cure illnesses.  Why would they do otherwise?  They are not the final point of care and if a drug does not perform to specifications it will not be approved by the FDA, it will not be prescribed by doctors if many patients have undesirable effects, and its long-term efficacy will show it to be ineffective.  Pharmaceutical companies are not trying to make you sick.  I cannot emphasize this enough.  Yes, some drugs have had serious complications after coming to market but that has more to do with the approval process than malfeasance on the part of the companies.  The number of drugs that have had complications is dwarfed by the number of drugs that are regularly prescribed with little ill effects.

Speaking of approval, it costs more than a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market.  The first step is to identify potential areas of weakness in the market that could turn a profit to support new research and development.  Next, potential compounds are identified that have potential to act at the target site.  Of these thousands of potential compounds, probably 1000 will head to in vitro testing.  Of those, about 200 will make it to animal studies.  Through animal studies the efficacy profile and side effect profile will be initially established.  Most new drug studies fail at this stage.  In many cases, our animal models are not good enough to approximate the human conditions so it is difficult to create studies that have enough data for human testing.  Only about 10 potential compounds will be approved for initial human studies.  Phase I is a small human trial typically <10 healthy people used to establish safety.  0-5 compounds will make it through this phase.  Yes, a company can get all the way to Phase I only to have all their potential drugs fail.  Phase II is a larger study usually in individuals with the target disease that establishes dosing.  Usually 0-1 drug(s) make it through this phase.  Phase III is the large double-blind randomized study that establishes approval for the drug.  It costs around 50-100 million dollars just to run a Phase III study.  If the 1 drug makes it through Phase III, it still may not be approved for market.  If it is approved, it will enter Phase IV which is the long-term phase evaluating for safety in the general population.

I haven't touched on how difficult it is to run drug studies or the legal expenses involved but I hope you can now see why new drugs can be expensive.  It is a huge risk, literally billions of dollars that can easily be lost forever, and companies need the income to fund R&D for additional drugs.  Also, drug formulations are major indications to use brand names over certain generics due to different dosing requirements.  Less dosing (as in one per day instead of 2-3) is associated with increased patient compliance and better control of medical conditions.

2. There will not be a cure for cancer in our lifetimes.  Cancer by itself is not a diagnosis.  Cancer is a broad term for a huge number of diseases caused by abnormal genetics and increased growth of cells.  Different types of tissues develop different types of cancers and in many cases two people with the same type of cancer may have developed that cancer through completely different genetic mechanisms.  There is no cure for cancer lying under our noses and nobody is funding a massive cover up of information.  There are cures for certain types of cancers such as chronic myelogenous leukemia with a 9:22 translocation.  Gleevec blocks the specific abnormal protein caused by this mutation that causes uncontrolled cell growth.  Gleevec is made and marketed by Novartis (a pharmaceutical company) so your assertion that these companies are not interested in cures is wrong.

Funding for different cancer foundations is devoted to researching those diseases.  This is especially important for rare but deadly cancers such as pancreatic cancer where it is difficult to receive grant funding from the NIH.


It is my professional opinion that you should seek counseling if these issues are affecting you on a personal basis.
 
Why would anyone want to keep more people alive longer?  :evil:
 
allow ME to put an end to this thread by revealing my motive for starting it in the first place. First of all, I am not sure how many people are aware of this, so i think it is important to note a few things before I begin my arguement.

Firstly, that most medical careers do not require a single course on nutrition. The primary medical studies fall mostly under two categories which are drugs and surgery. And in fact if these types of doctors are found recommending alternative or nutritional treatment to their patients they will be sued for malpractice, not by their patients, but by their peers, thus there is no desire to learn of alternative methods or anything to do with nourishing the body. Surgery and drugs fall under a category of treatment that I like to call symptom stomping for obvious reasons.

Secondly, another important thing to note before I even take another step is that the average drug mark up (from cost of making to cost to you) is about 2,000%. This is a very precious market and not one that any of the Big Pharma companies are willing to lose. There are literally more pharma lobbiests in washington than there are senators and congressman in the entire country.

Thirdly, it is virtually impossible to expose the human body to a chemical that it has never seen throughout the course of human history (i.e. synthesized drugs) without expecting to see some unusual and undesired effects. Furthermore most drugs are designed to interfere with entire systems of the body, for example anti-inflammatory drugs completely shut down the cox 1 pathway. This pathway is responsible for protecting the lining of your stomach and it is the first line of defense for the immune system thus the side effects of ulcers and weakened immunity.

Now I will begin to explain. There is a cure for cancer, I don't really care for your opinion because I have seen it with my own eyes and I work with the people who should be dead right now according to traditional medicine. There is no one single end all cure however, there are a series of steps that can be taken that will virtually erase cancer every single time. In order to protect myself and my company I won't be using any specific names (we try to stay friendly with the FDA). But basically I have found myself fortunate enough to begin working under a 35 year experienced Doctor. This man started his medical career by founding and heading a large cancer clinic in a metropolitan area. The difference being that this was an alternative treatment center. At any given time he had approximately 15-20 doctors underneath him. They would give people medicines for free that the other hospitals would throw away, and he had a very generous and knowledgeable friend who supplied patients with free medicinal herbs. Among many other nutritional and alt protocols there success rate was astounding to say the least. He ran this clinic for about a decade and a half. He has been all over the world, worked with the man who founded NASA, and headed numerous clinics of various specialties, from performance to illness. He still practices today and is semi retired but runs an impressive clinic in a small town.

My experience under this man was so profound that I have decided to change my major to a medical career to help spread the word that alt treatments work. Now that was almost 20 years ago that they were running this clinic and technology has come a long way. Basically there is one company (which is the company that I work for) that began about 15 years ago to start research medicinal organic compounds on the same level as pharma companies. In fact by definition we are a pharma company ourselves. We employ HTP, LCMS, GCMS, Bio-chemistry Proton NMR a host of other technologies and most impressively full scale genomics research. Again the difference is that we do this research on plants and herbs rather than synthetic compounds. I won't get into to detail but the results are astounding to say the least. We are able to identify the actual components (molecules) responsible for the benefit in any given plant or herb.

I will only use one example, as I have said earlier most anti-inflammatory drugs shut down cox 1 pathway completely. We have developed an entirely organic anti inflammatory proven through independently run placebo controlled double blind human clinical trials to be 300% more effective than the leading prescriptions. Funny thing is that there are no dangerous side effects and it only alters the cox 1 pathway every so slightly rather than completely shutting it down.

As for cancer, study rife therapy, AND the works of a man name Robert C. Beck for cleaning out the immune system of toxins parasite and pathogens. This will allow it to focus on the cancer, see the great thing is, OUR BODIES THEMSELVES are the best cancer killers. Once this is done a simple organic and healthy diet with allow your body the raw materials it needs to kill the rogue cells. This is for informational use only and I am not trying to treat, cure prevent or diagnose any illnesses here.

As my mentor so brilliantly put it, "when working with chemicals that our body has never been exposed to, finding a cure for cancer is like trying to find a needle in a haystack the size of the sun. However when you give our bodies the organic and natural substances that they have adapted to for millions of years the answer becomes clear."

The biggest problem today isn't that the pharma companies don't have enough money and time to find a cure. Its that our food is less potent and more polluted then it was 50 years ago. In fact we don't even have half the potency of standard nutrition in our soils as we did 50 years ago.

The simplest "cure" for cancer is prevention, which is knowing how your body works and what it needs. If you wanna argue the genomic argument that "cancer is genetic and there is nothing that you can do." I will just say that thanks to thorough studies on identical twins, we now know that genes have about a 35% responsibility for genetic illness. The other 65% percent is up to you. Or so the saying goes, "a man owes very little to what he is born with, a man owes everything to what he makes of himself"

Believe what you want, it is of little consequence to me if you decide that mother nature is the enemy (which is common in virtually every profession). My bottom line is, if I can help people without exposing them to a host of dangerous side effects and life threatening treatments then I am sure I will always have a patient or two to keep me going. In my genuine opinion, pharma drugs and invasive surgery do have a useful place in medical science and should by no means be eradicated but SHOULD be the alternative form of medicine to less harmful, more effective, more direct and more natural forms of treatment.
 
Last edited:
Indiscriminate distrust will cause you to be a very lonely individual in the future.  You're applying a type of logic that is vaguely reminiscent of KM's style of interpretation.  Not all facts/examples are generalizable to the extent you make them out to be.  Any example is pretty much only relevant to that particular example.  If the cure for cancer is known to some, it would not be a secret for long.  I don't mean to come off as condescending, so I apologize if I have.  You can't only pay attention to the most salient facts; the truth is often revealed by examining the subtleties.

That being said, I believe in the healing power of plenty of nontraditional medicines, and also in modern pharmaceuticals.  Also, idk what you are talking about with the identical twins 65/35% thing...different behavioral traits and different genetic traits all exist with different degrees of heritability and are basically only minimally predictable.  If two parents both have brown hair and both have schizophrenia, their child doesn't have an equal chance of developing schizophrenia as he/she does of having brown hair.  With an entirely contrived set of genes in an entirely contrived environment, we still could not say for certain that this person would develop this disease or not develop that disease.

Cleaning out our body of toxins etc?  Our body produces things that can be toxic to us...
There are people that worked in coal mines and smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day and did not develop lung cancer, and there are others that lived in areas with fresh air and engaged in healthy lifestyles who have developed lung cancer. 

Sorry...after rereading this, it has probably only made me sound like an ass, and pissed you off.  Not my intention.
 
Last edited:
Cleaning out our body of toxins etc?  Our body produces things that can be toxic to us...
There are people that worked in coal mines and smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day and did not develop lung cancer, and there are others that lived in areas with fresh air and engaged in healthy lifestyles who have developed lung cancer.
Click to expand...
This is where genetics factor in. I know there are real-world examples of this happening so I won't bother siting any. Smoker coal miner might have a high tolerance to higher carbon concentrations because he worked in a mine. That's how most immunizations work too. Expose the subject to small and weakened amounts of a virus and they'll develop an immunity when they get exposed to larger concentrations of the same thing. Do this when the subject is young and the immune system will be strong. I'm not saying give inoculations to every baby (although I will give them to mine). It's just as acceptable to allow them to be exposed to things when they're young too. The same thing will happen.
Also, perhaps the "clean-air" person might have been exposed to something else that caused said person to develop lung cancer. They don't have this tolerance to higher levels of pollutants in their bodies and their lungs "object" by developing cancer.

The twins thing goes beyond genetics. It goes back to while they're in the womb. It's impossible for twins to receive the same "treatment" in the womb together throughout the whole term. A hormone given to one fetus in a higher concentration than the other at any time would instantly make them different. Genetically identical or not, twins are never identical on the inside.
 
All cancer is is damage to your dna which causes the cell to mutate improperly. It can happen by environmental causes, genetic causes, or by sheer dumb luck. On the other hand people may not be exposed to environmental causes, genetic causes, or maybe they just dont get it from sheer luck. Cancer has been around for as long as humans have, and I dont see it going away before we are gone either (unless they figure out some way to repair dna)
 
sl1982 is exactly right, and don't worry I'm  not taking anything personally but I as for your argument, I have met enough people who are cancer free  to convince me there is something here beyond anecdotal evidence. As for DNA damage the key here is DNA polymerase which is a quality control gene that uses vibration to find errors in the DNA then travels to that area of the strand and corrects the error. Funnily enough, the company that I work for has designed another formula that has been proven through independently run, double blind, randomized, human clinical trials to increase DNA polymerase and decrease DNA damage in as little as 14 days.

Just allow me to ask you this one simple question, if you have any sort of faith or belief that the process that is used to design and distribute traditional pharma drugs is genuinely effective, why is it so hard to believe that substances that are designed using that same rigorous scientific process only on organic compounds can be just as or potentially more useful?

 Anyway I am not ignoring subtleties I was simply trying to streamline my explanation without taking a million years going over detail by detail. If you really wanna I can break down the anabolic and catabolic processes and outline how different cancers and disease form and progress. If you look at the stats from just a hundred years ago, there was less cancer, less heart disease, less diabetes and less of a million other illnesses. Back then people were eating even more butter, even more steak and even more of the "unhealthy" foods that we are told to avoid. In my personal opinion this is because of the level of synthetic chemicals that have been introduced combined with less and less nutritious soils and therefore foods and animals. And nowadays, genetically modified products only serve to multiply the problem. Our DNA hasn't changed much at all in 10,000. We have spent literally hundreds of thousands of years on this planet steadily gaining intelligence, the whole time, as far as we are aware, we were most likely only exposed to natural compounds and pure soils and waters. The problem is purity and quality not the human body itself.

The human body is a miracle plain and simple. Pharma is just a profit engine, I notice everyone saying "why wouldn't the pharma companies wanna cure cancer"

DUH! if they cure cancer, then what need do you have to buy more drugs? no no, the perfect pharma drug in their eyes is one you have to take for the rest of your life. Talk about a fucking profit engine. I am sorry but snap out of it. These fucking people want your money, bottom line, of course if thorough and proven science helps them do it, then that's what they will use. I won't even get into the population control.

Bottom line it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not. There are people out there in this world, with a lot of money and/or a lot of power who DO believe that the population is out of control, that would do anything to retain that power and that money. Including killing you and your whole family while cleaning out your savings account. All the while they genuinely believe that they are only doing what is necessary by getting rid of the weakness and keeping population under control.

Come on, be real.
 
Last edited:
I thought maybe by reading this thread we as a community of FF7 enthusiasts could cure my father's case of Merkel-Cell Carcinoma. Yarlson, you seem to be suggesting that his best hope for survival outside of the traditional tools (chemotherapy, radiation, surgery) is "cleaning out [his] immune system of toxins parasite and pathogens". I can't say that I think doing that would ever be a bad thing. . . but I was really hoping perhaps we might be able to do more for him than an enema or whatever that entails. Prevention is certainly the way to go, but when you're looking at losing your old man, and his long-time love for processed foods and soda haven't met up with that approach, where do you go from there? Is there something NEW on the horizon?

Well... maybe. As it turns out my dad's body IS actively fighting this "infection". Indeed this type of cancer and a lot of others basically act like viruses, from what little I have understood about it. Merkel-cell is typically extremely resistant to the bodies immune system. But for whatever reason, his T-cells are actively attacking the cancer, keeping the mass he's developed small. It's in a place where surgery isn't feasible. Since his medical team noticed the immune response, they've been working to replicate the potency of his immune agents, which are apparently vastly more effective than is typical--the hope being that the substance they eventually develop can be infused into Merkel-cell patients. The development process has been going on for several months now, and I'm getting anxious; I'm worried he will run out of time to get to test it out himself. The word is that within a few weeks he will for the umpteenth time since this all began 6 months ago, fly to Seattle, WA  (the center of the Merkel-cell world) and begin receiving the treatments. That seems remarkably fast to me. Is the Pharm industry involved with this at all? I don't know at all. I really don't know any details AT ALL about the project. It does suggest some communication between the medical community/research/pharmo industry. Maybe this type of research is exactly what you are suggesting is really fighting/attempting to cure cancer, Yarlson. I hope so... I like to think we're really doing everything that can be done to extend his life. I've been told he has a 20% chance of surviving, though I'm unclear of how LONG hes supposed to live for in the positive scenario. We try not to dwell on it.
 
sl1982 is exactly right, and don't worry I'm  not taking anything personally but I as for your argument, I have met enough people who are cancer free  to convince me there is something here beyond anecdotal evidence. As for DNA damage the key here is DNA polymerase which is a quality control gene that uses vibration to find errors in the DNA then travels to that area of the strand and corrects the error. Funnily enough, the company that I work for has designed another formula that has been proven through independently run, double blind, randomized, human clinical trials to increase DNA polymerase and decrease DNA damage in as little as 14 days.

Just allow me to ask you this one simple question, if you have any sort of faith or belief that the process that is used to design and distribute traditional pharma drugs is genuinely effective, why is it so hard to believe that substances that are designed using that same rigorous scientific process only on organic compounds can be just as or potentially more useful?

 Anyway I am not ignoring subtleties I was simply trying to streamline my explanation without taking a million years going over detail by detail. If you really wanna I can break down the anabolic and catabolic processes and outline how different cancers and disease form and progress. If you look at the stats from just a hundred years ago, there was less cancer, less heart disease, less diabetes and less of a million other illnesses. Back then people were eating even more butter, even more steak and even more of the "unhealthy" foods that we are told to avoid. In my personal opinion this is because of the level of synthetic chemicals that have been introduced combined with less and less nutritious soils and therefore foods and animals. And nowadays, genetically modified products only serve to multiply the problem. Our DNA hasn't changed much at all in 10,000. We have spent literally hundreds of thousands of years on this planet steadily gaining intelligence, the whole time, as far as we are aware, we were most likely only exposed to natural compounds and pure soils and waters. The problem is purity and quality not the human body itself.

The human body is a miracle plain and simple. Pharma is just a profit engine, I notice everyone saying "why wouldn't the pharma companies wanna cure cancer"

DUH! if they cure cancer, then what need do you have to buy more drugs? no no, the perfect pharma drug in their eyes is one you have to take for the rest of your life. Talk about a fucking profit engine. I am sorry but snap out of it. These fucking people want your money, bottom line, of course if thorough and proven science helps them do it, then that's what they will use. I won't even get into the population control.

Bottom line it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not. There are people out there in this world, with a lot of money and/or a lot of power who DO believe that the population is out of control, that would do anything to retain that power and that money. Including killing you and your whole family while cleaning out your savings account. All the while they genuinely believe that they are only doing what is necessary by getting rid of the weakness and keeping population under control.

Come on, be real.
Click to expand...
Let me set a few things straight about what I believe on this subject. I believe that there can be 'cures' for cancer. While not a cure in a general sense more of a fix. Like a broken bone. While setting a bone and letting it heal for 6 weeks will fix the problem it is not exactly a cure, you can easily break another bone later in life. I believe cancer works the same way. While living a healthy lifestyle and eating certain foods will help prevent a reoccurance or help prevent entirely getting cancer it is no guarantee that someone will not get it. While there are some substances that will help get rid of cancer it is only a fix. There is a reason they say you are in remission and not cured. As for big pharma drugs vs homeopathic, I believe that both have the potential to help prevent or fix a current cancer. There is absolutely no reason at all that a synthetic molecule has to work better then one found in nature. My problem with homeopathic is the snake oil salesman that convince people that their product will cure a person so they forgo all traditional medicines. I would like to see some of these homeopathic medicines go through a controlled double blind and see how they fare. Honestly I believe that our best bet to find something to 'cure' cancer will be derived from a natural substance, but you wont see me taking something like that exclusively over traditional medicine without clinical trials and published literature in a reputable journal.
 
I was trying to be subtle, not really trying to cure anyone here. But if you really want a better explanation then here it is. Rife therapy was developed in the thirties. royalrife.com It actually has the ability to destroy cancer cells using electronic sound. The only reason why it is not in common practice now is because its inventor refused to sell out to a big corp, so they tried to crush him and kept his machine down. Anyway it works, I've seen it, and its been scientifically tested and proven by multiple alt doctors since then. If you've ever seen a glass break when a certain sound wave is hit, its very similar to that. As for robert c becks protocol, well you might want to take it a bit more seriously. I dunno about you but I trust my immune system more than any prescription. The problem is that cancer is not the priority for your immunity. This is part of our dna. If there is an infection, a bug, a bacteria, a virus the bodies immunity is programmed to focus all its attention on this instead of cancer, because 10,000 years ago that probably would have been the more viable threat. If there is nothing else but the cancer the immune system kicks in to gear and is designed to kill off these rogue cells when "it has nothing better to do". Robert C. Beck's machine has even been shown to clear out any virus in the blood stream. *hint* *hint*

anyway he was so upset at the fact that they wouldn't publish his works and machine that he made a book and gave it away for free and also made an electronic copy. you can find it without much effort. It explains how it works, how to use it, why it works, what you need to make it, a detailed blueprint and safety instructions.

as for published literature, we were about 90% complete ready to publish our double blind I described above on the anti-inflammatory being more effective than the leading pharma anit-inflam but guess who had an ad in the journal. Unfortunately getting these things published in this oppresive pharma controlled FDA system is kinda like a fairy tale. It would be really nice if it happened, but don't expect it to actually go down any time soon.

I am not sure if you are aware of this but, there is an FDA law that states essentially this. One cannot handle, access, or share clinical information unless that individual is a licensed professional. Meaning that, if you really wanna see some trials, I could introduce you to my doc and he will have no problem letting you know all the clinical trials we have done so far as well as the rest of the clinical information but as for me, my hands are tied until I receive a degree. I would do it anyway, but I have no easy way to access the info without hacking into servers and putting my job at risk; no thanks, I love what I do too much. By the way, I am serious, I will give you his phone number and you can ask him yourself.

You may be thinking "that's not a real law, what a phony" well check it out. The law is too valuable not to exist if you think about it, its a double edged blade. Not only does it serve to keep the nature based scientists at bay; if a pharma company finds that one of their big expensive "experiments" ends up getting the job done but along the way it killed say, 30% of the using population, well that's okay because as long as nobody spends their time and money exposing these facts, they are not required and in fact legally protected from this information ever getting out. Thus they can sell the drug for at best a few years before anyone connects the dots and at least get there moneys worth. Viox for example. Of course since they are a huge corp no one will be held accountable anyway and they will chalk it up to human err and ignorance.

there is another thing we agree on though, as my mentor often says to his patients "as much as I love what I do, its sad to say that the world of nutrition makes the world of used car salesman look like saints." Unfortunately there is mostly nothing but hype in the holistic and alternative realm which is what makes the really effective stuff so damn hard to learn about, get your hands on and trust in its effectiveness.

The snake oil salesmen are real, and of course be wary of any information you receive especially over the interweb. But I dare any single one of you to prove me wrong conclusively. Of course this would force you to make your own decision about all this which is why I even bother in the first place.
 
Last edited:
If you have valid scientific proof that Rife's machines and methods work, it needs to see the light of day. Maybe mainstream publication will deny it, but one of the double-edged wonders of the internet is the ease of leaking information that somebody with a dollar to gain wants to keep down.
I also suggest submitting it to the James Randi Educational Foundation. If it qualifies for their challenge of homeopathy (I don't know what specific alternative medicines were addressed in their recent announcement), there could be a million dollars in it, which could be infinitely helpful to propagate the knowledge and use, as well as get some licensing to stop all the fraudulent "Rife machines" that've been in circulation.
As a skeptic, I'd love to see this scientifically proven true, but remain merely intrigued until then.
 
well my mentor has been using it for over 2 decades now so I am no longer a skeptic but I can understand. The problem here is mostly the quality of the machine you get. Some are incredible, while some are incredibly shitty. I might just take you up on that proposal. As far as educating yourself on it, that's why I posted the link.

royalrife.com

the machine recommended by the man who publishes on that site is the highest quality model that I know of and it is the one I have personally seen in action. But more than that, it is a valuable resource for learning more about the therapy, how it works, how its administered, so forth and so on.

you can also read a book entitled "The Cancer Cure that Worked" - Barry Lynes
 
Last edited:
I was trying to be subtle, not really trying to cure anyone here. But if you really want a better explanation then here it is.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like total BS.
 
Not that you'd bother to find out for yourself, right? I'm sick of lazy people like you just eating from the hand that kills you. Be my guest, DON'T BELIEVE ME. Go ahead and choke on all those pharms for all I care. I have no regard for unscientific opinions boy.

have a nice day :]

p.s.
science = organized experimentation

not senselessly believing in popular opinion

good luck. you're gonna need it
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top