Re: Re: Synthetic Molecule Causes Cancer Cells To Self-destruct,,Scientists have fou

September 2, 2006

Unfortunately, there's more than electronics involved, there's some

pretty precise optics as well.

Naessens is still alive and working in Quebec if you want to visit him...

Brown wrote:

>

> Hi

>

> This is all very fascinating, but I am skeptical. I'd like to

> believe there is something real here. Admittedly, I haven't read all

> the material presented, and what I've read so far provides too little

> information for me to really judge what I've read, other than that it

> sounds really far fetched. I always keep an open mind, but this

> really sounds too good to be true and that it may defy the laws of

> physics.

>

> Does anyone have direct experience with any of this? It appears that

> one could put together the equipment to make one of these machines

> for less than $1000 if one assembles much of it oneself. I'm sure

> that I could do it, being an electronic engineer, but I would

> hesitate to put in the time, effort and money without further solid

> evidence and a better understanding..

>

> Has anyone seen one of these machines? Somatoscope or Rife machine???

>

> At 01:40 PM 9/3/2006, you wrote:

>

> >Actually, there's another way to view live cells at extreme

> >magnifications: Gaston Naessens' Somatoscope.

>

><http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & \

as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occ\

t=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>http://www.google.com/search\

?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_f\

t=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & a\

s_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

> >

> >I haven't investigated it personally, but I spoke with a physicist

> >friend of mine regarding it and he said the operating principle behind

> >it was sound.

> >

> >Jim wrote:

> > >

> > > Rife's machine was used by a group of doctors in the 30's in which 14

> > > of 16 were cured during the study. Gerson's work was done in the

> mid to

> > > late 50's. He cured 48 of 50 of various forms of terminal cancer

> > > including a young boy with brain cancer, but several died of other

> > > causes since their bodies were so depleted, especially those with

> liver

> > > cancer. No one in the mainstream ever considered Gerson's work to be

> > > important enough to warrant any consideration after he died in 1958.

> > > There simply is no money in curing people with diet and cleansing,

> even

> > > though he proved decisively that his treatment worked..

> > >

> > > Rife's life work met a different end: He was well known and thought of

> > > in his field and he developed and constructed what is still the

> world's

> > > most powerful lens microscope (the only way to study live

> microbes) and

> > > was a leading microbiologist. The president of the AMA, during the

> > > 50's, tried to strong-arm Rife's machine away from him. When that did

> > > not work, he did all he could to kill it including taking him to

> > > court. Rife won, but went broke as a result. His machines were

> > > destroyed and he died of a broken heart in 1971.

> > >

> > > You could probably find variations of both of their treatments in

> > > quackwatch, but both wrote books, others have written books about

> > > them, and their work is extremely well documented..

> > >

> > > studied by cancer work was a1thighmaster wrote:

> > >

> > > > Has there been any confirmation or validation of these claims by an

> > > > independent group?

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Celeste

> > > >

> > > > Jim wrote:

> > > > > The new " breakthrough " cancer cures are seldom better than 5%

> > > > > effective, while Rife's came through at 100% for 16 cases (two

> cures

> > > > > were not claimed till after the test period). His was so good

> that he

> > > > > managed to save the lab animals that he infected with breast

> cancer.

> > > >

> > >

September 2, 2006

Unfortunately, there's more than electronics involved, there's some

pretty precise optics as well.

Naessens is still alive and working in Quebec if you want to visit him...

Brown wrote:

>

> Hi

>

> This is all very fascinating, but I am skeptical. I'd like to

> believe there is something real here. Admittedly, I haven't read all

> the material presented, and what I've read so far provides too little

> information for me to really judge what I've read, other than that it

> sounds really far fetched. I always keep an open mind, but this

> really sounds too good to be true and that it may defy the laws of

> physics.

>

> Does anyone have direct experience with any of this? It appears that

> one could put together the equipment to make one of these machines

> for less than $1000 if one assembles much of it oneself. I'm sure

> that I could do it, being an electronic engineer, but I would

> hesitate to put in the time, effort and money without further solid

> evidence and a better understanding..

>

> Has anyone seen one of these machines? Somatoscope or Rife machine???

>

> At 01:40 PM 9/3/2006, you wrote:

>

> >Actually, there's another way to view live cells at extreme

> >magnifications: Gaston Naessens' Somatoscope.

>

><http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & \

as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occ\

t=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>http://www.google.com/search\

?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & as_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_f\

t=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & a\

s_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

> >

> >I haven't investigated it personally, but I spoke with a physicist

> >friend of mine regarding it and he said the operating principle behind

> >it was sound.

> >

> >Jim wrote:

> > >

> > > Rife's machine was used by a group of doctors in the 30's in which 14

> > > of 16 were cured during the study. Gerson's work was done in the

> mid to

> > > late 50's. He cured 48 of 50 of various forms of terminal cancer

> > > including a young boy with brain cancer, but several died of other

> > > causes since their bodies were so depleted, especially those with

> liver

> > > cancer. No one in the mainstream ever considered Gerson's work to be

> > > important enough to warrant any consideration after he died in 1958.

> > > There simply is no money in curing people with diet and cleansing,

> even

> > > though he proved decisively that his treatment worked..

> > >

> > > Rife's life work met a different end: He was well known and thought of

> > > in his field and he developed and constructed what is still the

> world's

> > > most powerful lens microscope (the only way to study live

> microbes) and

> > > was a leading microbiologist. The president of the AMA, during the

> > > 50's, tried to strong-arm Rife's machine away from him. When that did

> > > not work, he did all he could to kill it including taking him to

> > > court. Rife won, but went broke as a result. His machines were

> > > destroyed and he died of a broken heart in 1971.

> > >

> > > You could probably find variations of both of their treatments in

> > > quackwatch, but both wrote books, others have written books about

> > > them, and their work is extremely well documented..

> > >

> > > studied by cancer work was a1thighmaster wrote:

> > >

> > > > Has there been any confirmation or validation of these claims by an

> > > > independent group?

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Celeste

> > > >

> > > > Jim wrote:

> > > > > The new " breakthrough " cancer cures are seldom better than 5%

> > > > > effective, while Rife's came through at 100% for 16 cases (two

> cures

> > > > > were not claimed till after the test period). His was so good

> that he

> > > > > managed to save the lab animals that he infected with breast

> cancer.

> > > >

> > >

September 2, 2006

The problem is lack of funding, lack of understanding and lack of interest.

Naessens may well be wrong with his Somatid theory, but he's definitely

seen *something* weird going on.

The principle behind the microscope is absolutely brilliant. AFAICT, he

uses two different wavelengths of light to cause the cell to essentially

fluoresce. When a body gives off light you can magnify it many more

times than when it has to reflect light, thus the 50,000X magnification

ability... For living cells..!

Jim wrote:

>

> Dave:

>

> Interesting... I can't seem to find a picture of it, but the fact that

> the National Cancer Institute would even discuss it says something.

> They even discuss Rife's finding that microorganisms are present in

> cancerous cells (with no credit or reference). But then there is the.

> " No evidence has been published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals to

> support these proposals, and the somatidian theory of cancer development

> is not widely accepted. " which I would expect from this clean upstanding

> organization. What could could be so hard in finding an example of one

> of these?

>

> Thanks, Jim

>

> Dave Narby wrote:

>

> > Actually, there's another way to view live cells at extreme

> > magnifications: Gaston Naessens' Somatoscope.

> >

>

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & as\

_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt=\

any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>

>

> >

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images

>

<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Somatoscope & num=30 & hl=en & btnG=Google+Search & a\

s_epq= & as_oq= & as_eq= & lr= & as_ft=i & as_filetype= & as_qdr=all & as_nlo= & as_nhi= & as_occt\

=any & as_dt=i & as_sitesearch= & as_rights= & safe=images>>

> >

> > I haven't investigated it personally, but I spoke with a physicist

> > friend of mine regarding it and he said the operating principle behind

> > it was sound.

> >

> > Jim wrote:

> > >

> > > Rife's machine was used by a group of doctors in the 30's in which 14

> > > of 16 were cured during the study. Gerson's work was done in the

> mid to

> > > late 50's. He cured 48 of 50 of various forms of terminal cancer

> > > including a young boy with brain cancer, but several died of other

> > > causes since their bodies were so depleted, especially those with

> liver

> > > cancer. No one in the mainstream ever considered Gerson's work to be

> > > important enough to warrant any consideration after he died in 1958.

> > > There simply is no money in curing people with diet and cleansing,

> even

> > > though he proved decisively that his treatment worked..

> > >

> > > Rife's life work met a different end: He was well known and thought of

> > > in his field and he developed and constructed what is still the

> world's

> > > most powerful lens microscope (the only way to study live

> microbes) and

> > > was a leading microbiologist. The president of the AMA, during the

> > > 50's, tried to strong-arm Rife's machine away from him. When that did

> > > not work, he did all he could to kill it including taking him to

> > > court. Rife won, but went broke as a result. His machines were

> > > destroyed and he died of a broken heart in 1971.

> > >

> > > You could probably find variations of both of their treatments in

> > > quackwatch, but both wrote books, others have written books about

> > > them, and their work is extremely well documented..

> > >

> > > studied by cancer work was a1thighmaster wrote:

> > >

> > > > Has there been any confirmation or validation of these claims by an

> > > > independent group?

> > > >

> > > > Best regards,

> > > > Celeste

> > > >

> > > > Jim wrote:

> > > > > The new " breakthrough " cancer cures are seldom better than 5%

> > > > > effective, while Rife's came through at 100% for 16 cases (two

> cures

> > > > > were not claimed till after the test period). His was so good

> > that he

> > > > > managed to save the lab animals that he infected with breast

> cancer.

> > > >

> > >

September 2, 2006