Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A treatment for prostate cancer based on bacteria which live on the ocean floor brings complete remission for half of patients, a new trial has shown.
The therapy, involves injecting a light sensitive drug into the bloodstream and activating it with a drug to destroy tumor tissue, while leaving healthy tissue unharmed.
This study looked at such a small sample size that way more research would be needed to verify the effectiveness of this treatment. Furthermore, only 1 patient cured out of 47 doesn't sound that promising.
There has been a cure for cancer for years, although the establishment will not admit it.
Royal Raymond Rife developed both an optical microscope which could see living viruses and took pictures of cancer cells being destroyed by particular electronic frequencies he produced. Normal tissue was not affected.
Prior to his microscope only electron microscopes could see things this small and then the cells had to be killed and stained before they could be scanned. His optical microscope could/can see living tissue at electron microscope magnification.
Thats the kind of proof I want - to actually see the cancer cells being destroyed when they are hit with the correct specific frequencies.
There has been a cure for cancer for years, although the establishment will not admit it.
Royal Raymond Rife developed both an optical microscope which could see living viruses and took pictures of cancer cells being destroyed by particular electronic frequencies he produced. Normal tissue was not affected.
Prior to his microscope only electron microscopes could see things this small and then the cells had to be killed and stained before they could be scanned. His optical microscope could/can see living tissue at electron microscope magnification.
Thats the kind of proof I want - to actually see the cancer cells being destroyed when they are hit with the correct specific frequencies.
The kind of proof that has been refuted time and time again, just like the claims made by Royal Raymond Rife ? The kind of proof that cannot be replicated ?
I'm actually interested personally in this topic as I have a history of prostate cancer in my family. What you post here sir is, in the opinion of the scientific community, baloney. No one managed to replicate what he supposedly achieved.
ocpaul20, I realize this probably will mean nothing to you if you actually believe this (as it's a matter of faith to you) and since this is a free country, you can believe whatever you want. For the rest of you though, wikipedia has a pretty good article on this "scientist" and his inventions
Yac.
The kind of proof that has been refuted time and time again, just like the claims made by Royal Raymond Rife ? The kind of proof that cannot be replicated ?
I'm actually interested personally in this topic as I have a history of prostate cancer in my family. What you post here sir is, in the opinion of the scientific community, baloney. No one managed to replicate what he supposedly achieved.
We need proof right? Where are the papers which describe the experiments to support your statement?
I really do not think wikipedia is a particularly good source for any information which will be used as a basis for an argument. Are you suggesting the type of microscope or the cancer cell-killing frequencies are the problem here? However, if you use wikipedia as 'evidence' against the technology then I offer this website article as an alternative view.
There is a list as long as your arm of perfectly well-respected doctors and engineers who discovered a way to make their patients better yet were persecuted and attacked because the authorities did not want their information to be released. Prior to their discoveries they were well-known and well-thought of yet somehow, afterwards they were suddenly rogues who were trying to con the public and needed to be placed in prison.
I am sure you will agree, there are mega-bucks worth of dollars which are at stake here and if cancer or any other disease could be cured with a few treatments, then the revenue of the big pharma companies would drop drastically. Call me cynical if you like, however, you would have thought that with all the money going into cancer-related charities that any and every crack-pot idea (not just the ones which are funded by pharma companies) would be properly investigated in case it held some cure for us, but we all know that as soon as there is a cure for cancer, the cancer charity will not be needed any longer and the chemotherapy medicines which cost so much will be unnecessary too.
As a couple of examples to illustrate my points, in the early 1900s there used to be many clinics which promoted fasting as a cure for serious disease and many, many people were actually cured through this method, yet where are they now? All the current scientific papers on fasting have confirmed that if done under proper supervision, fasting is a really good way to cure serious disease.
Switzerland dispenses homeopathic remedies alonside the allopathic ones in their pharmacies. Are you telling me they are conning the Swiss people by doing this ? The British Royal Family have very long lives and are known to use homeopathy as well as orthodox medicine when necessary.
No, what you and others say about many of these cures and remedies I feel can be traced back to where the money flows. There is enough evidence but of course, as always it depends who you cite in your scientific paper and what outcome you want. Papers which do not support a sponsors agenda are not useful to a scientist's career and will not attract funding in the future. Scientific validation and proof is useful, but there is plenty wrong with science at the moment (as discusseed on CD in threads) if it needs to be found.
So, no proof ? Just a conspiracy theory ?
I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult, but again you provide no evidence, only conjecture. Also, you ask me for proof ? You're the one that's supposed to provide that, since you are making a point here. This is how science works. You make a claim ? You prove it. You don't go "now prove me wrong!".
Anyway, I doubt I will be posting here more, I've had my share of discussions with conspiracy theorists and quite frankly, I don't have the time nor desire for yet another one.
Carry on.
Yac.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
