Re: Rath enzymes/Wheeler/Pleomorphism etc

[Guest guest]

You are presenting opinion and theory---mainly that of Virginia

Wheeler---as fact.

" Cancer is simply a fungus. "

From my own reading, that is very much a matter of opinion, and if it

is at all true, it would prove to be true in only a certain fraction

of cases. I personally do not believe it.

" If the tumors are bathed in contaminated fluids because of poor

metabolism, these spent foods may rot and will call in Progenitor

cryptocides to morph into germs, Nature's scavengers, sent to eat

necrosed tissue (dead) and their excretions are the toxins we then

detect as being cancer. "

Here is some of what Commonweal says about Virginia Wheeler:

http://www.commonweal.org/pubs/choices/16.html

Did she, in fact, achieve the levels of clinical success that she

reports?

I remain agnostic about Livingston's claim that she found a cancer

microbe. It is an interesting hypothesis which should be

scientifically evaluated. As I mentioned, a small but identifiable

international coterie of physicians and researchers is currently

investigating pleomorphic organisms and cell wall-deficient bacteria,

so the ideas are unlikely to go away. Whether or not someone will do

a rigorous, independent evaluation to test Livingston's claims

remains unclear.

While her claims in regard to her " cancer microbe " and her vaccine

are an unresolved issue of high science, it is easy to overlook the

comprehensive nature of the immunosupportive and nutritional program

she designed around her vaccine. Livingston was both a brilliant

researcher (whether or not she was correct) and an inspired pragmatic

clinician who took ideas that made sense to her where she found them

and wove them into her treatment program. Livingston was a careful

observer of the methods of others, including the Gerson program and

other nutritional-metabolic programs in the San Diego-Tijuana area,

which is one of the hotbeds of alternative cancer therapies in North

America. She often attended conferences at which practitioners from

these clinics spoke. She was also a good friend of f Issels, a

pioneering nutritional-metabolic practitioner from Germany, and drew

on his work. So her nutritional-metabolic program is an example of a

coherent program that can readily be replicated by others with a

genuine research interest in her results.

But Livingston's claimed 82% success rate is entirely noncredible to

me, similar in its exaggeration to Max Gerson's claim of a 50%

success rate with advanced cancers and the claims made by many of the

other alternative cancer clinics in the San Diego-Tijuana area. These

grossly overstated claims of success are, it is true, endemic among

alternative cancer therapists. These claims greatly diminish their

credibility. Livingston, as a physician and research scientist,

should have known better than to publish these claims. Her poor

judgement helps account for her marginalization in the scientific and

medical communities.

Yet Livingston is certainly one of the best examples of an ethical,

credentialed, research-oriented practitioner who made her rationale

for treating cancer and her treatment protocols explicit, and who

welcomed outside evaluation. If she erred in failing to do careful

clinical research on her work, it is a common failing among

clinicians. The possibility that her work may, in retrospect, appear

historically significant--either as a result of her microbiology

research and her vaccine or as a result of her nutritional and

immunosupportive treatment protocol--is still open.

" If the tumors are

bathed in contaminated fluids because of poor metabolism, these spent

foods may rot and will call in Progenitor cryptocides to morph into

germs, Nature's scavengers, sent to eat necrosed tissue (dead) and

their excretions are the toxins we then detect as being cancer. "

That, too, is opinion, not fact. It has not even been conclusively

proven that " progenitor cryptocydes " exist, and the idea that they

would " morph " into " germs " is at best highly suspect.

Foetuses and unborn babies can also, in the sense that they grow so

rapidly, and that their growth ceases due to antiangiogenesis, could

also be described as " tumors, " but they are not tumors, and only

tumors are actually tumors, not scabs and not other healthful,

intelligent things the body does for itself.

Elliot

[Guest guest]

Great Post! Elliot

Pleomorphism has been proven although the stubborn conventional

medical groups continue to ignore the obvious. As far as a microbe of

a virus-like form being responsible for cancer may I direct you to

the work of Peyton Rouse who received the Nobel Prize for his chicken

cancer virus.

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/jimmunol;173/1/7

Dr. Rife along with Arthur Kendall isolated the cancer virus in

Kendall's 'K' media. In the recordings salvaged from Dr. Stafford's

closet, Dr. Rife tells the story of how he accidentally isolated the

virus that was associated with cancer. Using his super microscope,

he and Kendall observed pleomorphism by placing B. coli into a dish

and by slightly altering the pH over 36 hours intervals, they

observed ploemorphic transformations whereby the microbe changed form

to TB, Scleroderma, Sarcoma and Carcinoma and then back again to B.

coli. These recordings are available:

http://www.rifevideos.com/the_complete_royal_rife_cd_collection_mp3.html

The mechanism for tumor formation and a placenta being identical was

first postulated by Beard in 1903. To date, no researcher has

ever been able to disprove his research. Both structures are formed

from the Diploid totipotent and subsequently become trophoblasts that

emit the same identical HCG hormone. There is no differenct between

them.

http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/prevention.htm

http://users.navi.net/~rsc/unitari1.htm

The story of Royal Rife has been told many times. The newest

video, some of which was shot in my home, clearly explains all that

we have been discussing here. see below:

http://store.lymebook.com/riandfaofscg.html

Really an excellent post, Elliot. Please keep up this thread...

----------------------------Orig Msg---------------------------

.... " If the tumors are

bathed in contaminated fluids because of poor metabolism, these spent

foods may rot and will call in Progenitor cryptocides to morph into

germs, Nature's scavengers, sent to eat necrosed tissue (dead) and

their excretions are the toxins we then detect as being cancer. " ...

....That, too, is opinion, not fact. It has not even been conclusively

proven that " progenitor cryptocydes " exist, and the idea that they

would " morph " into " germs " is at best highly suspect....

....Foetuses and unborn babies can also, in the sense that they grow

so rapidly, and that their growth ceases due to antiangiogenesis, could also be

described as " tumors, " but they are not tumors, and only tumors are actually

tumors, not scabs and not other healthful,

intelligent things the body does for itself....

[Guest guest]

Absolutely excellent!

A year after I got well, I had a very wise person sit in my office for over

two hours and expound to me everything that is being discussed right now. I

was amazed and thrilled to hear and attempt to understand everything that he

told me. I truly believe it was a God-thing.

One year later we were in San Diego doing a seminar and actually got to meet

and visit with a person who had in their possession some of the original

Rife papers. After I was well, I did a couple of treatments on a Rife

machine in which there are only three like it in the entire world...well,

that was in 2001 so there may be more now, not sure. I did the treatments

because I wanted the " experience. " )

I especially like what was said earlier in that we are responsible for our

own illness. Most cancer patients just will not " hear " this and when it was

first presented to me by my doc, I would not accept it either. However, it

is true and we need to take ownership in order to completely heal. Cancer

is a disease of civilization and the love of convenience. Conventional

medicine has also added tons of " emotional baggage " to the equation through

the use of the barbaric methods they endorse and market.

Great discussion! I hope everyone is taking notes. Please don't take this

information lightly or dismiss it as unproven. Doesn't have to be " proven "

to be TRUE. Science refuses to think out-of-the-box, especially if monetary

profit is not involved.

Often in life, we stumble over what " seems " too simple.

Be Well

Loretta

-----Original Message-----

Pleomorphism has been proven although the stubborn conventional

medical groups continue to ignore the obvious. As far as a microbe of

a virus-like form being responsible for cancer may I direct you to

the work of Peyton Rouse who received the Nobel Prize for his chicken

cancer virus.

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/jimmunol;173/1/7

Dr. Rife along with Arthur Kendall isolated the cancer virus in

Kendall's 'K' media. In the recordings salvaged from Dr. Stafford's

closet, Dr. Rife tells the story of how he accidentally isolated the

virus that was associated with cancer. Using his super microscope,

he and Kendall observed pleomorphism by placing B. coli into a dish

and by slightly altering the pH over 36 hours intervals, they

observed ploemorphic transformations whereby the microbe changed form

to TB, Scleroderma, Sarcoma and Carcinoma and then back again to B.

coli. These recordings are available:

http://www.rifevideos.com/the_complete_royal_rife_cd_collection_mp3.html

The mechanism for tumor formation and a placenta being identical was

first postulated by Beard in 1903. To date, no researcher has

ever been able to disprove his research. Both structures are formed

from the Diploid totipotent and subsequently become trophoblasts that

emit the same identical HCG hormone. There is no differenct between

them.

http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/prevention.htm

http://users.navi.net/~rsc/unitari1.htm

The story of Royal Rife has been told many times. The newest

video, some of which was shot in my home, clearly explains all that

we have been discussing here. see below:

http://store.lymebook.com/riandfaofscg.html

[Guest guest]

Maybe others are staying with you but you're losing me. You're all

over the board here. One moment, cancer is a fungus, the next its a

virus, the next its a trophoblast cell. Which one do you believe it is?

Personally I do not believe cancer is a fungus. I hear people say this

of cancer, but I have yet to hear anyone holding to this theory give a

proper definition for what fungi are and how cancer fits that definition.

Fungi are organisms with very unique physical properties and are they

are neither members of the plant kingdom nor the animal kingdom.

Human cells, being human and therefore of the animal kingdom cannot

just turn into fungi. If one believes that cancer is a fungus then one

must believe that cancer is an invading organism that comes from

outside of ourselves. Think of athletes foot for example. The foot

cells do not turn into fungus by some unstated process. The fungus

itself attaches to the foot and grows there. It was not part of the

body to begin with.

" progenitor cryptocides " whether they exist or not are bacteria

according to Livingston, therefore they ARE germs, they do not morph

into germs.

I dont follow how the bodys reactions to things such as insect bites

are in any way similar to malignant tumor growth. I have not heard of

HCG being emitted during wound healing. Even if that is the case, it

would not mean these are the same processes. The body has so many

processes that it uses for its growth and maintenance. There may be

shared characteristics but that doesnt make them the same.

I do agree with the pancreatic enzyme theory and overconsumption of

protein.

" Digestive enzymes from the pancreas and the enzymes of the MMP family

are entirely different. " Thank you for clarifying my confusion. You

had referred to the MMPs as digestive enzymes only. Its important to

note for the theory of MMPs assisting with metastasis that the MMPs

themselves have ceased to function normally.

Best, KC

>

> Great Post! Elliot

>

> Pleomorphism has been proven although the stubborn conventional

> medical groups continue to ignore the obvious. As far as a microbe of

> a virus-like form being responsible for cancer may I direct you to

> the work of Peyton Rouse who received the Nobel Prize for his chicken

> cancer virus.....

>

[Guest guest]

I am unable to follow much of what I see when I go to the links you

posted. It is too technical for me. However, this statement is

" To date, no researcher has ever been able to disprove his research. "

is not the way of debate. It is not up to the other party to DISprove

something. It is up to the party asserting something to PROVE it, or

at least the other party ought to be able to duplicate the research.

Rife is dead, and from what I have read, his research died along with

him, as did his microscope.

If pleomorphism is real, then it should be readily observable with a

scanning electron microscope.

In any event, I actually do NOT see a need to continue this

discussion, as I do not think it is furthering the purpose of the

board, which is to help people heal from cancer.

I shall continue to object to any and all assertions that cancer is

caused by any one single thing, whether it is fungus, tobacco,

emotional injury or whatever.

Best wishes,

Elliot

[Guest guest]

Of course, Elliot, you are entitled to your opinion. However, it almost

sounds like the same argument that we get from " science. " They keep saying

" prove it! " I would say the same them to them. And the fact is, they

cannot PROVE it and their methods, which may give temporary results, almost

always do some kind of harm, in the end. So, possibly we need to put the

words, prove it, aside.

While I certainly believe that cancer being caused by a fungus or virus is

completely possible and probable, I also believe that outside influences

such as toxic emotions, environmental chemicals and toxins (which our

socieyt is laden with), chemical-laden and GMO food, etc. also are a huge

factor in a body that is already compromised.

Please don't box yourself in as we must learn to think outside of the box.

This type of discussion absolutely furthers the purpose of this board. It

very definitely helps people to understand what actually may be causing

their disease. Education is always empowering and we should never be afraid

of education - not saying you are, but some people are definitely afraid to

gain more knowledge because it means they may be wrong about their thinking

or may have to change their thinking.

I highly doubt we will ever have a cure-all for cancer. Why? Because

everyone is so different - different lifestypes, different emotional

stressors, different eating habits, different exercise patterns, different,

different, different. It must be approached in a whole body manner -

something, again, where science will probably never allow itself to go. But

the " cause " may certainly be from one thing and the reason everyone doesn't

get it may be because their body and lifestyles are different. Some people

handle toxins better than others which is why some people go through chemo

" seemingly " with flying colors and others, like myself who did only one

month, have every side-effect in the book.

It's all about keeping the terraine inhospitible to disease. Same for

viruses and fungus - doesn't mean we will not get them, but it does mean

that when the terraine becomes unfavorable their only alternative is to

become dormant.

Be Well,

Loretta

-----Original Message-----

In any event, I actually do NOT see a need to continue this

discussion, as I do not think it is furthering the purpose of the

board, which is to help people heal from cancer.

I shall continue to object to any and all assertions that cancer is

caused by any one single thing, whether it is fungus, tobacco,

emotional injury or whatever.

Best wishes,

Elliot

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

" Maybe others are staying with you but you're losing me. You're all

over the board here. One moment, cancer is a fungus, the next its a

virus, the next its a trophoblast cell. Which one do you believe it

is? Personally I do not believe cancer is a fungus. I hear people say

this of cancer, but I have yet to hear anyone holding to this theory

give aproper definition for what fungi are and how cancer fits that

definition. "

>

Cells that are starved for needed nutrients such as minerals and

oxygen begin to suffocate, a condition known as hypoxia. Impaired

lymph flow is largely responsible for this as is low metabolic

function which results in the incomplete digestion (combustion) of

foods (fuels). This residue tends to rot in the body humors forming

contamination in both the blood and lymph. The built-in defense

mechanism will call upon stem cells (Diploid totipotent) to construct

a barrier around this trash (a placenta so-to-speak), as it also does

in the case of an injury. (an induration). The master cell or job

foreman, the trophoblast, oversees the construction process. A

protective shroud is formed and utilities are brought in such as

electric and sewer (angeogenisis). The diploid cells are then parted

out and the particular materials that are required such as tissue for

skin or an eyeball, etc., are taken from the DT and the remainder is

discarded. The resulting tumor is benign and, just like after an

injury, the HCG hormone that kept white blood cells at bay, diminish

and then the digestive enzymes break down the tumor which is

assimilated back into circulation and used up a fuel. At this point

neither a virus, bacteria or fungus is involved. This is the normal

process for cellular injury repair. This is also the process that

allows a foreign sperm to enter but not be destroyed by the white

cells whom would otherwise see them as invaders. It is the HCG

hormone that blocks this action. Unfortunately the fibrin used to

construct the tumor is recognized as being normal tissue and thus the

white cells do not attack the tumor even when it may have cancer

going on inside, externally, nothing seems to be wrong.

You wrote:

" Fungi are organisms with very unique physical properties and are they

are neither members of the plant kingdom nor the animal kingdom.

Human cells, being human and therefore of the animal kingdom cannot

just turn into fungi. If one believes that cancer is a fungus then one

must believe that cancer is an invading organism that comes from

outside of ourselves. Think of athletes foot for example. The foot

cells do not turn into fungus by some unstated process. The fungus

itself attaches to the foot and grows there. It was not part of the

body to begin with. "

>

The body was equipped with a secondary back-up immune system that

kicks in to play when the white blood cell and lymphatic white cells

can no longer handle an ever increasing load. 10 families of normally

dormant cells are on reserve to be called into action when chemical

changes in the body fluids cause them to morph into germs, each

change intended for a specific function. This is pleomorphism. These

cells change form and function without replication and become

scavengers that when found at an injury site or in a cesspool of

depleted oxygen where dead cells are found, these scavengers eat up

the dead tissue and only the dead tissue just like leaches eat only

dead skin in infected wounds. These organisms go through a 14 or 16

stage life cycle (Rife and Naessens didn't see eye-to-eye on this one

but I tend to believe Rife as he was a much better scientist).

Anyhow, the normal cycle or immune system modulator, these forms

shift only in three stages. When the terrain becomes acidic and thus

unbalanced, the cycle expands and the stages go from spores to rods,

to double rods, to viruses, to bacteria and then to fungi. All stages

being pleomorphic transformations as each stage is reached. At the

mycelial stage, we have fungus and these fungi ramify meaning that

they plunge tentacles deep into tissue. It is this fungal form that

is seen as a white slimy coating over bulging tissue which is the

tell-tale sign of cancer.

You bring up an excellent point about athletes foot. It is true that

invaders can infect healthy tissue but not everyone in bare feet in

the shower will pick up the fungi and become infected. Only those

with impaired immunity will succumb. To quote Calude Bernard " The

microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

The transmission of disease is not caused by germs. If that were

true, everyone would be sick as we are all exposed to the same germs

in the environment. It is only when the millieu (internal soil) will

support these organisms will they take root and infect us. For the

same reason you can't grow a Palm tree in Toronto, the environment

isn't conducive for their growth. This is true of cancer and the only

way to get rid of cancer is to make the bodies environment hostile to

this fungus.

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

" I shall continue to object to any and all assertions that cancer is

caused by any one single thing, whether it is fungus, tobacco,

emotional injury or whatever. "

>

I never said that a fungus or any other germ was the cause of cancer.

What I said was that in cancer, these scavengers are always found.

Pleomorphism has been scientifically proven. It is no longer

conjecture. A good search into the topic will support this.

You wrote, " If pleomorphism is real, then it should be readily observable with a

scanning electron microscope. "

Excellent point! It is seen all the time but because that microscope

can only see dead still organisms, when seen they are considered to

be different organisms when in reality they are different stages of

the same organism. Try to figure out the plot of a movie by only

looking at the lobby posters. Rife was able to observe this process

and I have seen it too! A new microscope technology on par with

Rife's exists today and these observations are now being verified.

You wrote: " In any event, I actually do NOT see a need to continue this

discussion, as I do not think it is furthering the purpose of the board, which

is to help people heal from cancer. "

My contention exactly! Until people understand what this disease

really is, they will continue to experience failure. Modern science

is blind because they cannot see viruses in living form. They are but

blind men describing the elephant.

Cancer is a metabolic disorder. It is the normal state for a body in

chaos. Tumors are not the cancer, they are garbage cans. By

extracting a tumor, one is closing the city dump. The patrons will

then dump their trash on every vacant lot.

" Cancer is Nature's protest against disobedience and is the penalty

she imposes upon those, who perhaps knowingly or unknowingly, have

ignored her teachings. " Bell, M.D. - 1913

[Guest guest]

I just saw this as it was in my spam folder.

I am still not totally conviced of this but have an open mind about

this as well. I went to a lecture about 13 years ago by a

Naturopathic Doctor. He said and had slides showing work a French

or French Canadian did with a microscope that was neither a regular

nor an electron microscope. According to the researcher, the fungus

changed from bacteria to fungus, virus, parasite right before his

eyes. I would like to find out more about this.

GB

>

> I am unable to follow much of what I see when I go to the links you

> posted. It is too technical for me. However, this statement is

>

> " To date, no researcher has ever been able to disprove his

research. "

>

> is not the way of debate. It is not up to the other party to

DISprove

> something. It is up to the party asserting something to PROVE it,

or

> at least the other party ought to be able to duplicate the

research.

>

> Rife is dead, and from what I have read, his research died along

with

> him, as did his microscope.

>

> If pleomorphism is real, then it should be readily observable with

a

> scanning electron microscope.

>

> In any event, I actually do NOT see a need to continue this

> discussion, as I do not think it is furthering the purpose of the

> board, which is to help people heal from cancer.

>

> I shall continue to object to any and all assertions that cancer is

> caused by any one single thing, whether it is fungus, tobacco,

> emotional injury or whatever.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Elliot

>

[Guest guest]

Here is a link to my last post.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/naessen.htm

GB

>

> I am unable to follow much of what I see when I go to the links you

> posted. It is too technical for me. However, this statement is

>

> " To date, no researcher has ever been able to disprove his

research. "

>

> is not the way of debate. It is not up to the other party to

DISprove

> something. It is up to the party asserting something to PROVE it,

or

> at least the other party ought to be able to duplicate the

research.

>

> Rife is dead, and from what I have read, his research died along

with

> him, as did his microscope.

>

> If pleomorphism is real, then it should be readily observable with

a

> scanning electron microscope.

>

> In any event, I actually do NOT see a need to continue this

> discussion, as I do not think it is furthering the purpose of the

> board, which is to help people heal from cancer.

>

> I shall continue to object to any and all assertions that cancer is

> caused by any one single thing, whether it is fungus, tobacco,

> emotional injury or whatever.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Elliot

>