Re: Viral oncology

[Guest guest]

Hi

Just a little bit of dissension here. I think tumors are due to toxins and

hormonal inbalances. I don't think viruses cause tumors.. Viruses have been

blamed for vitamin b defeciences, dangerous pharmaceuticals, and AIDS. For more

information, read " Inventing the AIDS Virus " by Duesberg. He talks much

about " the virus hunters " . I also don't believe in the genetic theory. If for

example, many people in a family are becoming diabetic, their exercise habits,

diet and stress level needs to be looked at first before genes.

Bare wrote:Animal tumor associated/causing

viruses lecture site.

http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curriculum/VMS8984/toth/Lecture7/TextSlides/GVira\

lOnco01text.htm

[Guest guest]

,

Your response got me to thinking....

Dr. Rife mentions that the BX virus is visualized with his microscope based

upon it's chemical constituents. On page 7 of his mongraph " History of the

Development of a Successful Treatment for Cancer and etc... " he lists the

Chemical Relativity to Cancer - Coordinative Constituents " as

Dibenzanthracene and Napthalene

Treatment was directed towards the " Correct coordination of resonance with

the chemical constituents of a given organism " ( pg1 )

So... anyone know what the NMR frequencies for naphthalene and

dibenzanthracene might be?

Might also look at benzol, benzene, and anthracene.

Jim Bare

i

>

>Just a little bit of dissension here. I think tumors are due to toxins

>and hormonal inbalances. I don't think viruses cause tumors.

[Guest guest]

The viral cause of cancer was thoroughly established by Dr. E.

, whose work was in many ways more impressive than Rife's. He

found a specific virus (using an electron microscope) that was distinct

from other viruses. It was present in all malignant tissues examined,

but was not found in normal tissues. He was able to culture it on

artificial media, showing than viruses are not lifeless protein

particles, but are living organisms; they are nothing more than smaller

bacteria. He fulfilled Koch's postulates, showing that this organism

was the cause of the tumors. He showed that it was the virus that

sensitized the cells to the effects of hormones and toxins, so that

these factors are only secondary; if the virus isn't present, the tumor

will be benign. He showed that the virus produces the enzyme

chymotrypsin, accounting for its invasiveness. He developed an antibody

test that was 88% diagnostic for cancer. He developed an antibiotic for

the cancer virus that produced phenomenal results. He also pointed out

that all the essentials of his work had been reproduced by other

competent researchers.

There was also Dr. Hett who found that cancer was caused by a

virus. He developed some type of serum and also claimed excellent results.

So we have at least three researchers, Rife, , and Hett, who

found that cancer was caused by a virus. They all developed therapies

against the virus and claimed results that would easily put modern

cancer therapy to shame.

Regards,

denise jameson wrote:

>

> Hi

>

> Just a little bit of dissension here. I think tumors are due to toxins and

hormonal inbalances. I don't think viruses cause tumors.. Viruses have been

blamed for vitamin b defeciences, dangerous pharmaceuticals, and AIDS. For more

information, read " Inventing the AIDS Virus " by Duesberg. He talks much

about " the virus hunters " . I also don't believe in the genetic theory. If for

example, many people in a family are becoming diabetic, their exercise habits,

diet and stress level needs to be looked at first before genes.

>

[Guest guest]

CB wrote:

<snip>

>

> Really, it serves no purpose to put any one cause into a box and say it's the

ultimate cause of cancer, because all these factors interact. However the

presence of virus(es) can certainly alter the metabolism of cells, significantly

tipping the scales in favor of cancer-like activity. There are numerous cancer

viruses that do this in one way or another, and some act faster than others

depending on their capabilities.

>

> Certain scientists feel there are 3 major causes that tip the scales toward

cancer: viruses, toxins, and radiation damage. The more of these factors that

are (or have been) present in any one tissue, the easier for a cancer type of

transformation to occur.

>

All these factors do interact, but neglecting or minimizing the

" ultimate cause " misdirects the development of treatment protocols. In

my opinion, the fundamental reason why conventional, and alternative

treatments for that matter, fail to deliver as advertised is because

they are not targeted toward the " ultimate cause " . Also, didn't

agree with the notion that many viruses could cause cancer. He tested

patients suffering from other virus diseases and none of them had

antibodies for cancer virus. He said, " This proves beyond a question of

doubt that cancer virus is a specific virus for a specific disease -

cancer, and has no relationship to other infectious diseases. "

Regardless of whether is correct on every point made in his

book, his research is very impressive and needs to be followed up on.

Of course, as far as treatment goes, I prefer Rife's electronic approach

rather than 's antibiotic.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Bare wrote:

> Something of consideration which Rife wrote....

> Page 2 of his paper on " History of the Development of a Successful

> Treatment for Cancer and other Viruses, etc "

>

> " We have also proven that it is the chemical constituents and chemical

> radicals of the virus under observation which enact upon the unbalanced

> cell metabolism of the body to produce any disease which may occur. "

>

> Further.... " We have in many instances produced all the symptoms of the

> disease chemically without inoculation of any virus or bacteria in the

> tissues of experimental animals. "

>

<snip>

I feel that this is only partially correct. If it was strictly a

chemical agent, then the sterilized cultures would still produce the

disease when injected into the test animals, because the chemicals would

still remain. found the same thing; " An additional experiment

was performed to rule out the possibility that the tumors were caused by

the transmission of a chemical agent. This virus was heated to 56 C.

for one hour and then injected into twice as many animals as before, but

no malignancy developed. This proves that it is living virus which

produced the malignancies. " One factor that may explain the discrepancy

is that Rife doesn't appear to have tested the animals for the

preexistence of cancer virus before inoculating them with chemicals or

virus. He merely quarantined them for a period of time to establish

that they were healthy. That doesn't mean that they weren't harboring

cancer virus.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Alan Petit wrote:

>

>

> There is something confusing here.Antibiotics have no

> effects on viruses beginning only to work with

> bacterias.So that cancer particle might be much closer

> to bacterias.Rife also called his microbe ¨virus¨only

> because it was a filtrable form.The word virus didnt

> have the same meaning as today.

> Best

> Alan

This is generally, but not strictly true. Some antibiotics do have some

effects on viruses, but the reason that they generally don't affect

viruses is because they are not developed against viruses. If it will

remove confusion, we could sub-categorize the antibiotic as anti viral,

rather than antibacterial, but even that might be inappropriate in this

context. To quote Dr. again,

" Some have felt that antibiotics would have no effect on virus diseases,

but only on bacterial diseases. This would be peculiar if true, for

viruses are only bacteria that are so small that they pour through a

Berkfeld filter, while bacteria will not. "

In the context of these discussions, I don't use the term virus

according to the modern definition, but according to the definitions of

Rife, and others, that they are nothing more than filterable,

primordial forms of bacteria.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Alan Petit wrote:

>

>

>>The frequency of light used to stain the BX virus

>>should therefore be the

>>same as will cause epi-flouresence of it's chemical

>>constitutents. I

>>believe what Dr. Rife is saying is that what ever

>>frequency of light will

>>cause epi-fluoresence of dibenzanthracene or

>>naththalene will also make the

>>BX virus visible.

>>Maybe.A good idea anyway.But the point is still the

>

> same.If you want to follow the Rife path,in any

> case,you will need his microscope.Because I have the

> feeling that somebody on the list will propose

> ¨his¨microscope that idea should be tried with the

> Ergonom.But the fact is that Rife never used that way.

> Alan

Any microscope that can see virus sized organisms in the living state

could be used for Rife MOR research; it doesn't have to be a " Rife "

microscope. The spectroscopic techniques used in the Rife microscope

might be useful, but not absolutely necessary. As long as you can see

it live, that's all you need for MOR verification.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Reid wrote:

>>The measurements that Rife found for what he called

>>the BX virus, are totally consistent with modern

>>measurements of viruses. Bacteria and fungal

>>organisms are much larger in size than viruses.

>

>

> Microbes vary in size same as people so there are

> small forms and large forms. The small viral size

> forms could still be small fungi.

>

Microbes do vary in size, but not so much so as to confuse fungi for

viruses. If you have any hard evidence to say otherwise, I'd surely

like to see it.

> If you still want to believe it's a virus that's

> fine. Myself I've experienced cancer and CURED my

> cancer. I know for a " fact " that it's linked to a

> fungus and the bacteria ecoli. I had a tare in my

> intestin which leaked the ecoli bacteria into my left

> side and leg. This caused a burning pins and needle

> fealing. The skin cancer that I had was localized left

> leg, knee, and foot.

If you know this for a " fact " , then it's only reasonable that you should

provide some evidence in support of how you know this " fact " . What

experimental research have you done (or can quote) that not only

confirms your theory, but also refutes the extensive research done by

qualified researches such as Dr. ? Do you have a pathology

report of the biopsy that was done to confirm that you had cancer? Does

this report state that fungi and E. Coli were found in the biopsy

sample? Do you have photomicrographs of the biopsy sample that show the

presence of fungi and E. Coli? How did you confirm that whatever

therapy you did actually killed the fungi and E. Coli, and thereby

" cured " your cancer? These are important questions that need to be

answered, not only because there are a lot of people on these lists who

are in need of reliable information for their own illness or that of

their loved ones, but also because the making of claims of " cures " and

" facts " , without any substantive evidence only serves to discredit the

efforts that are being made in this field.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Reid wrote:

>

>>BX virus <> BY virus <> Coccoid <> fungous

>

>

> The virus is accually a small form of the fungus it

> growth cycle. Like the child is to the parrent. The

> viral form does not cause the tumor the fungus form

> does. Although the viral form is present it will only

> form a tumor if the enviroment is correct. IE no

> oxygen turning the cells (fungus) to ferment.

>

<snip>

Actually, the research indicates that it's the virus that causes the

tumor. I'll quote some more from Dr. 's book:

" When one examines the field of bacteriology of cancer he is

impressed with the large number of organisms found in cancer tissue.

All of these have been thought by some workers to be agents causing cancer.

Most of the ordinary bacteria and fungi have been found in these

tissues. This is natural, for cancer is primarily a degenerative

disease starting frequently on infected, ulcerated, or abscessed tissue,

or tissue that has been irritated for some time. Also after cancer has

been growing for some time it may become necrotic and ulcerate, which

forms an ideal medium for infective organisms to lodge in and grow. ...

All scientists will agree that the mere finding of bacteria in

cancer tissue is not proof of anything. All agree that Koch's Postulate

must be carried out. The latter has been done with positive results by

the author, and subsequently by others as well.

This brings up an important point in bacteriology. Blood agar

colonies of cancer virus seldom get larger than a pin point, while the

colonies of bacteria and fungi become much larger. Sometimes bacterial

cultures will overgrow cancer virus cultures and thereby become

contaminated. Thus when this colony is picked up it actually consists

of two or more different organisms.

For instance, in our work one particular blood agar culture of

breast cancer, brought in from surgery apparently sterile, had many pin

point cancer virus colonies and a few staphylococci colonies. These

colonies were observed on the first day. The next day the staphylococci

colonies had overrun those of cancer virus and naturally had become

contaminated. If this latter colony of contaminated staphylococci were

injected into animals to carry out Koch's Postulate, it could easily

lead to an erroneous result.

Cancer virus itself, no matter how many times it is transplanted,

always develops the same organism and the same type of colonies.

Another important point to note in this work is the fact that it is

very common for virus to ride " piggyback " on larger organisms. Figure

100, page 75, is an electron microphotograph showing this. Most

bacteriologists working in this field have not had electron microscopes

to check their work in this way.

In our work, when these colonies of bacteria were checked and pure

strains developed, they would not produce cancers; however, with pure

cancer virus Koch's Postulate has been carried out more than fifty times. "

This quote shows how easy it is to make the erroneous conclusion that

bacteria or fungi are the causative agents of cancer, when in fact it's

the cancer virus that they are contaminated with that actually caused

the cancer. I should also point out that did not believe in the

pleomorphic theory, believing instead that all the other organisms found

were natural contaminants. This is understandable considering the fact

that he didn't have a Rife type of microscope to view the pleomorphic

process taking place. The pleomorphic theory, however, has no real

bearing on the fact that it is the virus that is the cause of the

cancer, not some bacteria or fungi.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Tony Gallistel wrote:

> Sterilizing the culture proves that the vital virus is required to produce

infection. It does not eliminate the possibility that viral metabolites are the

cause of the tumor.

>

> My opinion only of course.

>

The sterilized culture would contain the viral metabolites that were

produced during the culturing process before sterilization, and came

through the filter as " virus excrement " . Since the sterilized culture

containing dead virus and virus metabolites does not cause tumors, it

can't be concluded that it might be the metabolites that are the cause.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

d.a. wrote:

> What is the title of Dr. 's book?

>

The title is " Pathogenesis of Cancer " , by E. , M. D. The

third edition was published in 1955 and the second edition was published

in 1952.

I'll quote the introduction to the third edition:

" This book is not the result of a few experiments and a theory. It

is the result of exhaustive and careful research work, all of which has

been repeated by competent men in their fields. The research outlined

here has cost the author over $250,000. It is the result of more than

20,000 hours of research in the field of cancer. In the past ten years,

forty weeks have been spent at research clinics and at scientific

meetings which pertained to this subject.

This research work was presented at the International Cancer

Congress in Paris. It was also presented at the Southern Medical

Association, at the National Electron Microscopy meeting, at

postgraduate assemblies, and before many other medical groups.

Now that cancer research has reached a new milestone, it is perhaps

worthwhile to bring up-to-date the results of this research.

This book in no way suggests that essential or early surgery and

radiation can be neglected in the treatment of cancer. Rather it is the

author's hope that pharmaceutical laboratories and all research

laboratories will be inspired to a more active program in the search for

additional antibiotics which may be effective in the treatment of cancer.

This research and the publications have been carried out in the

highest ideals and ethical interests of the medical profession. "

The contents of the third edition are as follows:

1. Animal Malignancies

2. Electron Microscopy of Human Cancer Virus

3. Cancer Virus

4. Experimentation with Cancer Virus and Koch's Postulate Fulfilled

5. Cancer Serology

6. Bacteriology of Cancer

7. Antibiotics in the Treatment of Cancer

8. Antibiotics

9. Clinical Evidence for Virus Theory of Cancer

10. Public Health

11. Chemistry of Cancer

12. Enzymes

13. Nutrition

14. Hormone Therapy in Cancer

15. Streptomycetes in the Treatment of Cancer

16. Antivin - A New Antibiotic

17. Tumor Regression

18. Mitotic Figures

19. Role of Virus in Cancer

20. Summary

21. Bibliography

I can only imagine how things would be if Rife put all of his research

in the form of a monograph the way Dr. did.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Reid wrote:

>>This is understandable considering the fact

>>that he didn't have a Rife type of microscope to

>>view the pleomorphic process taking place. The

>>pleomorphic theory, however, has no real bearing on

>>the fact that it is the virus that is the cause of >

>

> the cancer, not some bacteria or fungi.

>

> A virus can not live outside of a host.

If a virus could not live outside a host, there would be no possibility

of airborne transmission, hand to hand, or even hand to nose

transmission. I believe the prevailing opinion is that viruses need

host cells to replicate, which is different than what you stated.

Besides, as I've pointed out in quoting Dr. 's work, he and

others found that viruses can be cultured outside of living tissue, and

so the whole field needs to be reexamined. I've also pointed out that

in the context of these discussions, I use the term virus with the

definition of , Rife and others, that they are just smaller

bacteria that can pass through filters that hold regular bacteria back.

They are not lifeless particles that require host cells for

reproduction, but have the potentialities of life within themselves, and

can grow on the proper lifeless medium.

> So without

> the host how can a virus cause cancer?

This is an illogical question, because cancer requires a host

irrespective of what causes it.

> So what is it

> that produces the virus? Where does it come from?

These are rhetorical questions which are irrelevant the subject at hand.

> How

> do " you " kill or stop it?

There are many compounds that are germicidal to viruses. There is also

the possibility of activating the immune system to detect and destroy

it, as well as the possibility of finding resonant electrical

frequencies. There is also the possibility of altering the " terrain " ,

so that it's no longer favorable to its growth.

> Have you ever cured or know

> of anyone that has cured theirselfs of cancer? I do

> and have.

>

I do know someone who has " cured " them self of cancer more than once,

but I can't provide anything that you can check up on and verify, so

it's irrelevant in a scientific discussion. Besides, this question has

no relevance to the issue of whether cancer is caused by a virus versus

a fungus. " Curing " yourself of cancer is not scientifically acceptable

" proof " of what the cause of the cancer is. If someone had cancer and

did nothing to treat it but it spontaneously disappeared, would that

mean that the cancer was cause by nothing?

> If the cancer isn't fungi based, which trive on

> carbs/sugar then please show me one artical that shows

> a virus thrives on sugar. Show me " one " virus that

> ferments. Please show me and then I'll believe you.

> Until then " my " research points to fact that cancer is

> a fungus that comes from the ecoli bacteria. It

> " might " start as a virus but it

> evolves into a fungus.

>

Cancer cells " thrive " on sugar because they're cancer cells; that

doesn't explain how they became cancer cells.

> It's also a theory of mine that the cold and flu

> virus hitch hike in on fungus. Bacteria and virus do

> not live very long the air and a virus can't survive

> without a host. Fungus on the other hand can live in

> humid places. So they become the host for many virus.

>

>

>>Actually, the research indicates that it's the virus

>>that causes the tumor. I'll quote some more from

>>Dr. 's

>

>

> I notice your quote come from doctors. All mine

> come from real life experiences and from a nobel

> prize winner.

>

>

Doctors have far more " real life experience " in treating cancer than you

or I. They publish the results of their research so that it can be

checked and confirmed or refuted. You've shared nothing in your " real

life experiences " that can be checked up on.

>> This brings up an important point in

>>bacteriology. Blood agar colonies of cancer virus >

>

> seldom get larger than a pin point, while the

>

>>colonies of bacteria and fungi become much

>>larger.

>

>

> If a virus can't live without a host how can it

> colonize? Please explain. Please explain the method a

> person uses to view a colony of virus. It seems to me

> that only the electron microscope today is able to see

> a virus. You find out how they use the the electron

> microscope. I read they freeze then slice off part of

> " dead " materia then look for something that " might "

> ressemble a microbe.

>

There are many photomicrographs in Dr. 's book.

> Your quotes reminds me of something that happened

> to me a while back. A doctor said that there was no

> truth to the fact that that the Doug machine accually

> killed Lyme spiroketes. It was in his abstract. I

> called him and he went through his spill about the

> machine is no good. He went out there and Doug showed

> him some weak spiroketes and his machine killed them

> but they were about to die anyway. He said I could

> have done the same thing with a drop of penicillin.

> When I hung up I had the fealing that the machine was

> no good just a joke. THEN it hit me, he said it worked

> when I was on the phone but in his abstract he said it

> didn't. He intentionally misslead the information and

> tryed to missleed me.

>

How does my quoting the rigorous scientific research of a qualified

doctor remind you of this? The quotes I've made are of published

research that can be checked up on and confirmed or refuted. How is

this like the doctor who tried to mislead you?

> You can believe that cancer is a virus and can

> wait for a machine that will kill the virus that you

> can't see. Myself I couldn't wait and my friends

> couldn't wait. I had skin cancer and one friend had it

> in her lymph nodes. They said she would die. She's

> alive and I've been cancer free for years.

Belief is irrelevant in scientific research. What is relevant is hard

evidence that can be held up for scrutiny by others and be either

confirmed or refuted. You seem to expect us to uncritically accept your

theories, despite the existence of valid research that shows otherwise.

That is unacceptable to anyone who values reason.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Alan Petit wrote:

<snip>

> ps work is a very good start.You seems to

> trust it 100%....

I don't necessarily trust it 100%, but I definitely think it's

impressive enough to warrant following up on. spent his own

money doing the research, so there doesn't appear to have been a

financial conflict of interest. He also seems to have been very

thorough in addressing all of the arguments and aspects of the research.

Add to that the fact that his research wasn't done with cell lines, so

was directly applicable to human cancer. It seems to me that the

researchers that developed therapies based on the " viral " theory of

cancer, are the ones that produced good and consistent results. The

modern research is for the most part worthless, not only because it

isn't based on the " viral " theory, but also because the vast majority of

modern cancer research is done with cell lines and transplanted tumors,

and as such has no relation to real cancer that occurs in people. For

the full story on this read the book by Gerald Dermer, " The Immortal

Cell: Why Cancer Research Fails. " If cancer research was based on

correct theories and used reliable models, the " war " would have been won

long ago.

Regards,

P.S. One of my favorite quotes is by nobel prize winner Kary Mullis,

who said, " People who think any scientific fact is indisputable don't

understand scientific facts. "

[Guest guest]

Alan Petit wrote:

>

> Sorry jason

> I have to disagree.When you use a microscope you set

> the scale.What Rife has seen with His microscope is

> absolutely different from what you can see now on any

> dark field micro. no matter wonderfull it might be.The

> allegedly Rife freq. worked on what Rife found through

> his micro.Consequently they dont work on what you can

> see now with modern micro.Otherwise cancer would be

> today just a souvenir.

> I am very surprised no one ever mentioned that.

What Rife saw with his microscope was different only because of the

superior performance of his microscope. The BX " virus " doesn't and

didn't exist only when viewed under the Rife microscope, although I

suppose quantum theorists will suggest otherwise. The BX " virus " exists

and existed before Rife built a microscope that could see it, and the

reason his microscope could see it was because it had superior

performance. If someone else built or builds a microscope that has the

requisite superior performance, then it will be able to see it as well.

Now regarding the dark field microscope, it has the potential to

" detect " objects as small as the BX, but it can't resolve them. The

magnification would still be an issue, but that's another matter. I

wonder if " detecting " the BX would be sufficient to do MOR research. It

would be interesting to have a dark field microscope with an optical

system of sufficient magnification, and resonant light illumination, and

see if the would be enough to " see " the BX. The resonant wavelength of

light could be determined with a spectrophotometer. The reason cancer

isn't just a souvenir today is because nobody is doing research with BX

and microscopes that can see it, not because we don't have Rife's

microscope.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

I am new to the Rife scene, but have done experiment on my own body for

over 20 years already. Everything I read on Rife confirms my own

experimental results, so I know it is true. Besides, I am also familiar

the concept behind Traditional Chinese Medicine which incidentally fits

perfectly with the pleomorphism theory. I am at the beginning stage of

getting someone with megabucks to get interested in all of these. To

that person, all these are simply a giant business opportunity. To me,

it will be something that will benefit the people of the world. I am

formulating the concept of " The First Resort " which will be a place

that people can come and have their health restored without using the

current western medical approach. And in order to stay outside the

control of western regulatory agencies, that resort is going to be

located in a beautiful resort town in China! When and if I am

successful in doing this, I will appeal for all capable people to come

and contribute to make this a reality. Stay tuned...

>

> A few million , well spent can change things in two years, not 150.

>

> Jim Bare

>

>

[Guest guest]

, i cannot find this book, and in an article on rife, i heard of

Zeta potential, and all books are off the market. Does the govmt buy

them up?

The title is " Pathogenesis of Cancer " , by E. , M. D. The

third edition was published in 1955 and the second edition was published

in 1952.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia (more on that in a

latter post) and I have been reading up the posts made while I was out of

the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral oncology " which I have

been finding very constructive.

I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich (inventor of the Ergonom

microscope) and he made some interesting comments which I want to share.

Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in great detail and has

years of experience looking at it. He has been involved in a number of

studies and research into cancer including a study with the University of

Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his help, patients with very

serious tumours went into full remission and are still alive today!

Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance therapy and is fully in favour

of it (he uses such therapy himself).

Here are some points he made:

1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to determine the EXACT

frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will not be destroyed and in

some cases may even grow faster.

2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He found that the frequency

to use had to be determined individually by testing the virus obtained from

the patient under the microscope, individually. This is because the virus is

different according to the environment in the patient's body. Every person

has their own weeknesses in their system and the development stage of

cancers differs, accordingly.

This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

frequencies!

3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug companies, yet he says the

most effectice method against viruses in most cases is bioresonance - not

drugs.

4. What most people do not know is that viruses do not have a fixed size -

they grow from being young viruses into full size viruses and this effects

the resonance frequency, too.

5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking at viruses as the process

of observation with such a microscope not only causes the viruses to die,

they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is not what viruses normally

look like. For example, the HIV virus van be about 30-40nm according to the

textbooks as that is the size as seen under the electron microscope. In

reality, they can grow to nearly 300nm when seen in their living state - a

fact established during a trial in Berlin using the Ergonom microscopes.

Regards

Moderator

www.rife.de

www.grayfieldoptical.com

[Guest guest]

Alan Petit wrote:

>

> What a mixture of arguments but the point is very

> important here.The Rife microscope is unique in a

> sense it does ,among other things,manipulate

> Light.

All optical instruments (including our eyes) manipulate light; that's

how they accomplish their task.

> Rife was an inventeur not an ingenieur or an

> universitary and thinking of his machines following

> *scientific* journalistic articles or books written

> after his time is a big mistake.

Rife's machines were based on the unique application of scientific

principles. The big mistake is to think of them as something magical

that can't be considered scientifically.

> Yes the Rife BX exist only through the Rife micro. as

> the somatid exist only with Naessens micro so with

> Enderlein and others.Of course the lets say the BX

> *essence* is as old as the Earth and can be viewed

> differently with different machines provided they are

> able to do it.No need to look at quantum theories to

> understand that.

> The performance you talk about is only an * innocent*

> result and you forget completely the machine

> conception and his purpose.

> That point is very important and should not be

> dismissed by simplistic views.

>

Nothing should be dismissed with simplistic views, but it is well known

that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one; Occam's Razor.

The purpose of Rife's microscopes was to see things that couldn't be

seen with what was available. In order to do that it needed superior

performance. It wasn't an " innocent result " , but was the whole point of

building the microscopes. There's no need to overly complicate the

matter. He needed a microscope to see organisms (in the live state)

that weren't observable with regular microscopes, but which he had

indication and believed existed.

> What you say concerning dark field micro. is only

> valid for them and I mean also the way they are

> build.This has nothing to do with Rife.You can add

> whatever you want to an darkfield micro. you will

> never see the Rife BX.

I think you are overly fixated on doing things exactly the way Rife did

them, rather than following the principles, ideas and goals that Rife

had. His electronic devices and microscope frames were primitive

compared to what could be accomplished today. Darkfield is just another

form of illumination and as such doesn't necessarily have anything to do

with Rife, but that doesn't mean it might not be useful in Rife

research. Dismissing it without investigation is unscientific.

> Now you say detecting BX but HOW you detect it?Please

> enlight me because if you have the real Rife BX I can

> put some hard money down and start experimenting.

As I indicated, detecting an object is not the same as resolving it. In

darkfield illumination, many things are detected by the light they

scatter, but are not resolved. My comments were in speculation as to

whether detection might be enough.

> And you say nobody is experimenting with BX for the

> good reason no one is able to I would not say get it

> which is another story but to see it,both cases being

> intertwinned.

A Doctor or other qualified researcher should be able to get tumors and

culture it. Dr. didn't have a Rife microscope. He used an

electron microscope and arguably saw the same organism. True, the use

of an electron microscope would prevent experimentation with

frequencies, but it could be used to reestablish its existence and

culturing technique.

> I think you sincerely believe what you say but in my

> humble opinion you are in a wrong path.

Henry Ford believed and had the attitude that the Model T was the final

word on automobiles. Modern automobiles show how misguided that

attitude was, despite the fact that they are still based on the same

principles and general configuration. Would anybody today be satisfied

with a Model T for anything other than nostalgia? Rife's instruments

are the Model T, and while we still need to follow the same methods,

principles and general path he laid out, we don't need to follow the

exact instruments he used.

I've spent many years trying to help people see the issues clearly.

I've tried to show that we need to follow the principles that Rife

established, but we don't need to be totally dogmatic. What I've seen

for the most part is that people are either neglecting the fundamental

Rife principles, or are dogmatically chained to the actual original Rife

hardware, rather than the underlying principles involved. That, in my

opinion, is why there has been no real progress.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

missourinaturegirl wrote:

>

> , i cannot find this book, and in an article on rife, i heard of

> Zeta potential, and all books are off the market. Does the govmt buy

> them up?

>

>

> The title is " Pathogenesis of Cancer " , by E. , M. D. The

> third edition was published in 1955 and the second edition was published

> in 1952.

I have three copies of the third edition and one copy of the second.

You should be able to find a copy, like the other member who was able to

find one shortly after I posted the title.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I respect the work that Mr. Olbrich has done, but are we ever going to

get any hard data out of him, instead of unsubstantiated claims? When

are we going to see his photomicrographs of purified cancer virus and

his research data establishing it as such? When are we going to see the

data on his research with frequencies? To be sure, he has produced a

very nice microscope, but it is unacceptable to have various statements

come from him without any evidence that we can follow up on. One

example that comes to mind is the claim made that square waves are

better than sine waves; what is the evidence for this? It has seemed to

me that all of the statements that you have made and attributed to him

have been presented and expected to be accepted at face value, based on

his reputation, rather than on the presentation of evidence. I for one

would like to see something more substantial.

Regards,

wrote:

>

> Hi,

> I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia (more on that in a

> latter post) and I have been reading up the posts made while I was out of

> the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral oncology " which I have

> been finding very constructive.

>

> I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich (inventor of the Ergonom

> microscope) and he made some interesting comments which I want to share.

> Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in great detail and has

> years of experience looking at it. He has been involved in a number of

> studies and research into cancer including a study with the University of

> Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his help, patients with very

> serious tumours went into full remission and are still alive today!

>

> Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance therapy and is fully in favour

> of it (he uses such therapy himself).

>

> Here are some points he made:

>

> 1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to determine the EXACT

> frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will not be destroyed and in

> some cases may even grow faster.

>

> 2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He found that the frequency

> to use had to be determined individually by testing the virus obtained from

> the patient under the microscope, individually. This is because the virus is

> different according to the environment in the patient's body. Every person

> has their own weeknesses in their system and the development stage of

> cancers differs, accordingly.

>

> This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

> microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

> frequencies!

>

> 3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug companies, yet he says the

> most effectice method against viruses in most cases is bioresonance - not

> drugs.

>

> 4. What most people do not know is that viruses do not have a fixed size -

> they grow from being young viruses into full size viruses and this effects

> the resonance frequency, too.

>

> 5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking at viruses as the process

> of observation with such a microscope not only causes the viruses to die,

> they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is not what viruses normally

> look like. For example, the HIV virus van be about 30-40nm according to the

> textbooks as that is the size as seen under the electron microscope. In

> reality, they can grow to nearly 300nm when seen in their living state - a

> fact established during a trial in Berlin using the Ergonom microscopes.

[Guest guest]

--- Wrote---

One example that comes to mind is the claim made that square waves are

better than sine waves; what is the evidence for this? It has seemed to me

that all of the statements that you have made and attributed to him have

been presented and expected to be accepted at face value, based on

his reputation, rather than on the presentation of evidence. I for one would

like to see something more substantial.

--->8---

Hi ,

Do you mean to say there is no evidence that square waves are better than

sine waves ?

Dr detects resonance with sine waves, but treats the microbes with

square waves, but she doesn't give any real evidence except to say that

square waves are better than sine waves.

With today's technology, square waves are easier to produce than sine waves,

just a on/off switch so I believe.

What about Jim's videos, he uses square waves when he blew up those pond

bugs. I'm sure Jim has tested sine waves out, and found square waves better.

Wouldn't this be evidence?

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Warren,

in order to get anything done, funding is needed and I have been

looking into this. As I have just been on a trip to Australia, I have

not been able to do anything else on this project so far.

However, I do suspect that even with funding, it will take many

months to have this book translated and printed in English.

Regards

>

> Hi ,

> I have already released a number of scientific films he has put

together

> based on his work. I do have a number of documents as well and a

lot of

> his

> work is in the book on Pleomorphism of which I have released an

extract

> to

> this group, recently.

> http://www.rifeforum.com/Pleomorphismus.pdf

> <clip>

[Guest guest]

Alan Petit wrote:

>

> I am not used to talk for nothing and will not argue

> point for point on your endless and confusing

> comments.

>

> `I think you are overly fixated on doing things

>

>>exactly the way Rife did

>>them, rather than following the principles, ideas

>>and goals that Rife

>>had.`

>

> This kind of rheteoric I know very well and its easy

> to manipulate people mind with that.A negation and an

> affirmation of negation just confuse and hypnotize the

> reader or the listener so he is ready to follow you or

> at least you create a ´^problem^^ for him.

>

I'm not trying to get anyone to follow me; I'm just sharing what I know

and understand about Rife's work. And I'm not creating a problem for

anyone, but am solving one; that of how to do Rife research without

Rife's microscope.

> I will argue only this point just for the list.

>

> The Rife principle as you say was to isolate and SEE

> not a virus as today terminolgy but an particle

> through his micro. and with freq. to blow it out.

> What he saw he called the BX.What he saw was through

> his micro. and his micro only.If we follow Rife we

> need to do what he did at least in the begining to see

> that BX.You say the simplest explanation with some

> kind of razor is the best isnt it?

If what he saw was " through his micro and his micro only " , then BX is

lost because Rife's microscopes no longer exist. Even when someone

succeeds in building a microscope based on the surviving information, it

still wont be " his micro only " ; there will always be questions and

issues to be argued, especially since there's no working original for

comparison. Since you hold to the idea of " his micro only " , you have

effectively eliminated any prospect of you doing Rife research with BX.

What you don't seem to realize is that what Rife saw and called BX is

only relevant because of his establishing it as the causative agent of

malignancy. The name he gave it or the tool he used to see it is

irrelevant in the final analysis. The simplest explanation that you

don't seem to understand is that Rife's microscopes don't exist anymore,

so we have to use whatever tools are available to us that will allow us

to accomplish the same goal.

> We can do the same with other micros provided they

> have similar capabilities as Rife one.But no longer BX

> because the scale has changed and consequently one

> will have to use different freq,Thats what Herr

> Olbricht has done.

The microscope is not the scale. The scale is the standards used to

establish the significance of what is being viewed, in this case Koch's

postulates. If I take a slide with E. Coli on it and view it under

darkfield, and then take the very same slide and view it under phase

contrast, is it no longer E. Coli? If I took the same slide and viewed

it under any other form of illumination or microscopy, would it not

still be E. Coli? How is BX different? As to your point about Mr.

Olbrich, we have no information that he followed the same standards and

procedures that Rife and others followed, so no comparison can be made.

To further belabor the point, if I bought two scales from two different

stores, would I not weigh the same on both? If one of them displayed

the weight in kilograms and the other displayed in pounds, would I not

still weigh the same? If Rife had an electron microscope right beside

his microscope and prepared both samples from the same culture tube,

would the sample that went under the electron microscope be a different

organism? If he called it XB instead of BX, would that make it

something different? I think this sufficiently shows how illogical is

the notion that the cancer causing microorganism, what Rife called BX,

is only relevant when viewed under a microscope that he built.

> Back to our point.Volontarily or not you entertain the

> confusion saying the BX is everywhere and can be seen

> by any micro. even with an electronic micro as in the

> case.

I didn't say " any micro " , I said any microscope that had the

*requisite performance*. And I don't recall ever saying that BX is

everywhere.

> As far as I know Dr. never talk

> about BX.Only YOU with your non scientific " arguably "

> associate ,electronic micro. and BX.

found a virus in the same size range as Rife's BX, he used the

same Koch's postulates to establish it as the causative agent in cancer,

and he developed a therapy to destroy the virus and thereby cure the

cancer. What more association do you want? Are you suggesting that the

virus that found was not the causative agent because he didn't

call it BX?

> Rife BX form belongs to the Rife micro.Point.Period.

> Other samse scale micro. will see other different B

> something and consequently different freq. and

> different culture methods maybe will be used.And

> marvels could be done as Rife did.

I'm sorry, but you're totally mistaken. The form of a microorganism is

not dependent on the microscope used to view it. BX is BX regardless of

whether it's viewed under a Rife microscope, electron microscope,

Ergonom, , or any other microscope that might have the

performance needed to see it.

> Now for me that microscopic discussion in both senses

> of the word is OVER and will no more answer so you can

> argue for the eternity if you want.

>

I'm sorry you can't handle or have no desire for debate on such an

important issue. I personally find these discussions very valuable, if

only because it forces me to make sure of and clarify my own position.

If I understand the scientific process correctly, debate is part of how

scientific progress is achieved.

> Just a last word concerning the model T Ford.

> First i begin to understand some friends with your

> over inflated ego and

> Second the model T cars were far behind todays

> cars.But with the Rife micro. its quite the

> opposite.Only the Ergonom 70 years later more or less

> is of the same trend.So forget Ford and your wrongly

> choosed exemple.

Perhaps it wasn't the best analogy. The Rife microscopes were far

advanced in optical performance, but they weren't advanced in usability

and productivity. That's how I intended the Model T analogy. Modern

microscopes are much easier to use, and therefore would have a higher

productivity.

> No offense

ly, I question whether you intend " no offense " , but for the sake of

peace and civility, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take

none. The efforts I make in debating these important issues are not for

the inflation of my ego. Like many others, I'm searching for truth. I

don't care what the truth is, as long as it's shown that it actually is

true. If someone presents a viewpoint that stands up to test and shows

my held viewpoint to be incorrect, then I would have to accept it. By

the same token, if I hold viewpoints that I'm confident are true, then

I'm going to defend those viewpoints, and feel obliged to my friends and

fellow humans to present those viewpoints for their consideration. I

don't think any reasonable person is going to discard a viewpoint that

they hold for a new viewpoint, without that new viewpoint being tested

out and proven. That's what conversation, discussion and debate are all

about. Some people seem to want to present their viewpoints and have

them accepted uncritically. That's definitely not me.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

K- Doe wrote:

>

> Alan,

>

> The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up. I'd do more research if I

were you.

>

> As for this arguement, it's pointless considering neither of you have done any

real research in the area. The only people who should be debating the issue are

people like Olbrich and the likes who've " been there and done that " .

>

Debating points of logic doesn't require the " real research " that you're

referring to. What I've been debating with Alan is that the cancer

causing microorganism that Rife called BX exists independently of the

Rife microscope, and would be visible with any microscope that had the

required magnification, resolution, and contrast. He seems to think

otherwise. The implication of his arguments is that if we followed all

of Rife's methods in culturing the organism and establishing its

causative nature, but viewed it with a microscope other than Rife's,

that it would be something other than BX. That, in my opinion, is an

irrational viewpoint and so I felt compelled to point that out. It's

nothing personal.

Regards,

jason

[Guest guest]

wrote:

<snip>

> Kurt tells me that he can detect cancer in blood up to 5 years in advance.

> Cancer can also be slowed or even stopped by getting the Ph level of the

> blood to be neutral or alkaline. It is acidic blood which the cancer virus

> lives in.

>

<snip>

It has been known since the 1920's or early '30's that in cancer, the

more alkaline from normal that the blood is, the worse the prognosis and

the faster the patient declines. In modern BTA testing, the blood is

almost always very alkaline, except when the conductivity skews the pH

reading.

Regards,