Cancer cure, but FDA and doctors would rather have your cash and not the cure.

[utilitarian]

Can you back this up with evidence? What is the patent number?

Ah, you're new around here!  See, the whole "evidence" thing does not fly very well here. It's kind of a circle.  Because mainstream science and medicine are evil, and because they use the scientific method, then the scientific method itself is wrong.  So you cannot apply the scientific method or any form of rigid, demanding analysis to the claims here.  So anything goes and everyone makes progress and adds excellent new info to the discussion, and no one notices that no one really gets anywhere.  It all works great and it is largely harmless (at least with perpetual motion research) and everyone is happy until someone actually takes some crackpot medical advice seriously and dies of cancer while chewing on apricot seeds.

[rbisys2]

QUOTE <Can you back this up with evidence? What is the patent number?>

Sorry guy, I don't have time to do our research.  But it is on rife.org and I think rexreasearch.com   and educateyourself.com.

Considering your remarks I find it hard to believe that you have researched this to any extent.  I have a feeling this is your reaction to anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived beliefs.  So be it.

I can tell you this, I have used my rife machine for over a year and have seen some impressive results.  I sorry this doesn't fit into the way you think things should work.

There is another post down a few bars on radiant barriers.  It would be interesting to see what your opinions about this technology is.

[IronHead]

Ah, you're new around here!  See, the whole "evidence" thing does not fly very well here. It's kind of a circle.  Because mainstream science and medicine are evil, and because they use the scientific method, then the scientific method itself is wrong.  So you cannot apply the scientific method or any form of rigid, demanding analysis to the claims here.  So anything goes and everyone makes progress and adds excellent new info to the discussion, and no one notices that no one really gets anywhere.  It all works great and it is largely harmless (at least with perpetual motion research) and everyone is happy until someone actually takes some crackpot medical advice seriously and dies of cancer while chewing on apricot seeds.

Scientific method my ass,  how about the greed method. I know at least 10 people to date that after taking b17 have no trace of cancer after being diagnosed where the scientific treatment has failed them. BAH!! to the FDA for trying to outlaw B17. They would have did the same thing with  vitamin C if they had the greedy medical/political infrastructure around Scurvy like they have around cancer today. Fact is they have been trying to get there greedy hands on Vitamin C for years now to have it controlled.


Just because b17 is a natural substance does not mean it was not proven in a scientific way to remove or kill cancer cells  .Scientist studied it for many many years and some pen pusher from the FDA labeled quackery. This had nothing to do with science , it had to do with politics! 

IronHead

[utilitarian]

Scientific method my ass,  how about the greed method. I know at least 10 people to date that after taking b17 have no trace of cancer after being diagnosed where the scientific treatment has failed them. BAH!! to the FDA for trying to outlaw B17. They would have did the same thing with  vitamin C if they had the greedy medical/political infrastructure around Scurvy like they have around cancer today. Fact is they have been trying to get there greedy hands on Vitamin C for years now to have it controlled.


Just because b17 is a natural substance does not mean it was not proven in a scientific way to remove or kill cancer cells  .Scientist studied it for many many years and some pen pusher from the FDA labeled quackery. This had nothing to do with science , it had to do with politics! 

IronHead

I never said that just because something is a natural substance, it cannot help cure cancer.  If you think B17 is so great, fine, take it when you get cancer.  But if you want someone else to actually believe you, then you fund the clinical trials.  A simple Internet search has pulled up what clinical trials there were, and there was no indication that B17 was helpful in this regard.

While your claim of 10 people being cured by it sounds nice, there is just not enough information there.  For example, what other medication were they given, what was the control group, was the test double-blind, was a placebo given out, to what level did each person get better, did cancer come back, etc.?  See, this is the sort of evidence required to establish that a drug works as advertised.  I am sure you really do not care for such rigorous proof, and that's fine.  But that is my entire point.

[eastcoastwilly]

Ah, you're new around here!  See, the whole "evidence" thing does not fly very well here. It's kind of a circle.  Because mainstream science and medicine are evil, and because they use the scientific method, then the scientific method itself is wrong.  So you cannot apply the scientific method or any form of rigid, demanding analysis to the claims here.  So anything goes and everyone makes progress and adds excellent new info to the discussion, and no one notices that no one really gets anywhere.  It all works great and it is largely harmless (at least with perpetual motion research) and everyone is happy until someone actually takes some crackpot medical advice seriously and dies of cancer while chewing on apricot seeds.

The patent has recently been removed from the ustpo.org it was number 5188738

Here's another copy of the patent >> http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5188738.html


Here's an excerpt from the "crackpots" that were awarded the patent.

"...the present invention has been devised to attenuate any bacteria, virus
(including the AIDS HIV virus) parasites and/or fungus contained in blood
contributed by a donor to the point that any such contaminant is rendered
ineffective for infecting a normally healthy human cell, but does not make
the blood biologically unfit for use in humans. Similar problems exist
with respect to treatment of other body fluids, such as amniotic fluids.
The treatment method and system is also applicable to mammals other than
humans."