SpyderedgeForever>> yes I've heard of Dr. Royal Raymond Rife. It's been a few years back and I don't precisely remember all the particulars of it but from what I gathered he had a type if Technology" that Nichola Tesla was working on that could control the expansion of cancer cells through some type of electronic frequency. I'm afraid to even comment on it because I probably know enough about it to be dangerous :rolleyes: Up front I'm not at all qualified to even comment on this technology and at this time I don't have proof of it's existence or whether or not there is any efficacy in his equipment. But there sure are a lot of well educated people that claim to believe in Dr. Rife's technology. But I will say that it does seem strange that the government and corporate America at the time went way out of their way to blow it all off like it was an elaborate hoax or something of the like .
But over the years I've had friends of mine who are highly educated in the field of electronics tell me that they believed in technologies that Dr. Rife and also some of the discoveries of Nichola Tesla in that field as well. But I can't definitively say one way or the other. The huge pharmaceutical cartels that are a big part of running this country would most certainly fight against anything that would effect their bottom line>> I'm certain of that.
I do think there is something to all of it but I'm not sure exactly what :confused: and look at all of Nichola Tesla's patents and inventions that came up missing after his death :confused: They were both really brilliant guys from what I can ascertain.
There seems to be a lot of talk, rumor, suppositions, hearsay and threads of conspiracy in that tale. I suspect that if the electronic, or electrical technology you mention was able to cure or very effectively manage cancer cells (and remember cancer isn’t a homogenous disease, each type grows and behaves differently so it would be difficult to imagine that one technique would be effective for all types) then there would be great economic advantage to developing such technology. No one has attempted that likely because it is not a realistic theory or science.
I am very familiar with cancer in general and my kind in particular. The best approaches are radiation therapy, chemo therapy and using hormones and body chemistry to kill it or deprive it of what it needs to spread. Cancer is so smart that even if deprived of fundamental substances it requires it may manufacture them itself.
I think there are no simple answers to complex problems.
Overheard at the end of the ice age, “We’ve been having such unnatural weather.”
Michael you do make some good points and I wish I could literally "high five" you for your constant efforts. The only issue I have at this time is what my late, very wealthy uncle used to constantly tell me>> "Follow The Money Trail, It Will Ultimately Lead To The TRUTH">> so with that being said I will go out on a very controversial limb and say that in spite of some of the incredibly good high-tech medical advancements and super innovations we've been blessed with there is still the demon of "Monetary Profit" that at this time pretty much rules the medical industry in this country. And when you got probably about five of the largest "big pharma" companies that at this time that do indeed have a stranglehold of sorts in the big picture of the western allopathic medicine.
But with all things considered you do make some solid points that can't be ignored>> and I hope to GOD you get your victory and get your health back 100%. But in my case and the underlying reason I launched this thread is that for so much "ball dropping" obviously going on in these huge medical specialty practices there doesn't seem like an adequate amount of responsibility for just outright, ridiculous blatant failures and almost non-existent quality control. In my defense I truly believe I should have got more than a scant four years of performance from that replacement knee joint to where now I'm going through even exponentially worse travail than I did the first go around. And Michael I'm betting that quality control issues in your case has been a big hurdle as well.
But yet not the manufacturer or the original Ortho Doctor or anyone else involved would even so much as say "We Are Sorry">> or even answer my phone calls for that matter and you know something if they would have tried to remedy the problem and took responsibility I would have been somewhat happy about it.
Thanks, JD. I try to respond with not only my opinion sometimes but also with what I know to be factual (evidential) and what reason I can bring to the topic.
I am sorry that you have been getting such a raw deal. No excuse for it, especially just cutting you off like that. Rude and unethical at best.
It’s a conundrum. On the one hand medical technology and pharmaceutical companies demand a great deal of money for their products and services, bringing in the necessity for insurance companies to be involved for the majority of us who can’t pay those prices. It doesn’t seem fair. On the other hand, research and development, driven in a great part by the FDA and federal health requirements, costs an unbelievable amount of money. Without those massive expenditures we wouldn’t get many super drugs and astounding technologies like artificial knees, hips, etc.
The question is, in my mind, where do you draw the line? We want to keep costs reasonable to the end consumer, yet we want the medical companies to continue to produce new technologies and drugs. It is a problem.
Personal example: one of the drugs I am taking to manage my cancer in lieu of chemotherapy is relatively new. Clinical trials show that it is as effective as chemo in my case, perhaps more so. Now, do I want to have a port installed in my chest, go to have chemical “poison” injected into my system on a regular basis, get sick regularly from it, or take a few pills every morning? Obviously, pills. But, being new and having been developed, tested and approved at great cost, they aren’t cheap. I can’t afford the co-pay for them. I got a grant of a few thousand dollars in the beginning but that got used up in two months. So I’m now applying for the pharmaceutical company’s free drug program. Being low income, I’ll probably make it but who really knows?
I would certainly like these drugs to be cheap enough for me to afford, but someone has to pay for their development - me? The taxpayers? Insurance companies? It’s a big puzzle.
I’ll close by saying that human behaviors and greed being what they are, I have no doubt that there is a certain amount of corruption and unethical business practices within the industry, but I do not put all of the blame on that or an undocumented conspiracy.
Like I said, complex problems don’t have simple answers. I hope we can get this resolved some day for everyone’s benefit. And I certainly hope that your next replacement goes very well and lasts forever.
Overheard at the end of the ice age, “We’ve been having such unnatural weather.”
If I may ask this question in this thread since it is about severe medical problems and the issue of problems with the development of new medical technologies was mentioned, what do you all think of the claims made over the years about "suppression of curative medicine"? Is there truth to this or is it just speculation?
I don’t know about all that, but one thing I do see clearly, medicine today seems way more focused on reducing symptoms than finding cures, and that kinda plays into your scenario.
Sure, there are exceptions (generally “surgical”) and I like to think those symptom based treatments are because we don’t yet understand the real cause->cure, but it is a LARGE amount of money we’re talking about and you gotta wonder....
I'm just finishing up my 2nd week in isolation. I had a non-surgical procedure performed about 5 weeks ago, where they offloaded some pressure from the portal system by (a) infarcting 40% of the spleen (b) running a small tube directly from the spleen to the heart via the aorta. This was all done as a radiological interventional procedure: I was placed in a twilight state, but not put under. There was no cutting.
The push behind this approach is that it puts the patient at much less risk of infection. The fact that our hospitals are the primary source of difficult infection cannot just be ignored any longer.
Well: I contracted 4 life-threatening infections. One was MRSA of the bloodstream, and there are only a couple antibiotics in the world which will fight this.
The next was a simple (well, relatively) UTI: my bladder and kidneys picked up a MRSA-infection. That was, thankfully, an easy fix as the infection quickly responded to standard antibiotics.
Next, I ended up, somehow, with a large (1-2 liter) pool of fluid in my belly. This pool of fluid was basically pus. We aspirated as much out as we dared, getting about 70% of it. A drain was left in place for the remained to trickle out.
This fluid is extremely virulent as a fighter of MRSA. We had to spend a week with the infectious disease team narrowing down the morphology of the MRSA in this case. We finally nailed it, we think: there is one antibiotic, ONE, in the world which will fight this infection. I'm receiving 4 bags of antibiotics daily.
Finally, there were some general areas of infection that cleared up quickly.
I will be receiving the IV antibiotics until at least July 10. I'm going home tomorrow, I hope, along with an IV pump, all the goodies, and I have a PIC line inserted so that I can easily give myself the 6 hour/day treatment.
That's an excellent but scary point that "Dubbya" makes about hospitals being a harbinger for a wide spectrum of insidious infections. I can't even count how many friends I've talked to in the past 8 to 10 years that have told me of similar dangers that "Dubbya" has obviously dealt with first hand. I actually went home two days ahead of what they recommended for me to stay for my knee replacement surgery>> and the worry of potential infection was one of the primary reasons I opted to leave ASAP. Also I seem to be much more relaxed and heal better at home anyway.
Not only are hospitals becoming dangerous to the patients I also worry a lot about friends of mine that work in the health care sector. They are constantly in prevention mode and must never let their guard down. It's been a few years ago but I still remember fresh in my head when country star Naomi Judd was then a nurse ( obviously before her stardom) and got a prick from a needle which almost took her life.
I've heard an "Epidemiologist" talk recently about the constant war they are in dealing with these super aggressive bacterial hazards in hospitals and other institutions>> it's really a major concern all over the globe. Keep us posted "Dubbya" because we're all pulling for you in your own medical battle. I just got news this morning that Ebola has broken out in a couple of countries over in Africa>> I just hope and pray we can keep it out of the USA. But the words of one of my late uncles is so true>>" health is wealth" >> yeah it's really that simple.
That is scary. My father contracted MRSA in the hospital. He fought it for 2 years until he passed away ( He had more than the MRSA to be honest) . I really dislike going to the hospital but the alternative can obviously be worse.
Holy Moly, guys (not the expletive that sprung to mind, but you get the gist).
Keep fighting.
The high cost of our free-to-use National Health Service is a political hot potato here (I didn’t know until recently that it is the worlds second biggest employer, after the Indian railways). Needless to say ones opinion of its worth varies depending upon whether you’ve had to use it.
From a different but personal perspective. My oncology team in UC Health, Aurora, has been instrumental in getting my cancer under control. It’s not curable, but with the proper management techniques, I can live with it for a while. I contracted sepsis last month. Not while in a hospital. Had it not been for the care of the medical staff in our hospital I’d be dead.
I’d say even with the dangers mutant infections can pose in hospital surroundings, we are far better off with them than without them. It’s either that or call your local witch doctor, or take well meaning but ignorant “friends” alternative advice to fight cancer, like eat apricot seeds, eat certain Chinese mushrooms, drink hospital grade hydrogen peroxide, eat only an alkaline diet, and get acupuncture. If I had followed that advice I would be dead.
Overheard at the end of the ice age, “We’ve been having such unnatural weather.”
And it’s worth noting too that while contracting an infection in a hospital is more likely, it’s not the hospitals that are breeding these bugs. That dubious honor goes the the factory farm, which requires a steady stream of antibiotics to keep the cattle alive in the crowded conditions.
Those are good points. The hospital based infections are quite scary. I too have heard about this and known people who got infections there.
They are attempting to improve it with new technologies such as these nanotech based surface-coverings that in laboratory experiments have proven to be safe to human cells but they literally are covered with micro scopic spikes that tear apart the cell walls of bacteria.
tv, do you think the claims of some are true that excessive use of anti bacteria soaps help cause anti biotic resistant bacteria or no?
Also, while this is not on the topic, since you are here let me ask you this: While diet depends on personal bodies and genetics, do you think this is a good idea? Someone said that a diet they have used and that works for people is to eat a hearty breakfast and a dinner and do not eat anything in between at all, except water if they are thirsty.
Also, while this is not on the topic, since you are here let me ask you this: While diet depends on personal bodies and genetics, do you think this is a good idea? Someone said that a diet they have used and that works for people is to eat a hearty breakfast and a dinner and do not eat anything in between at all, except water if they are thirsty.
IMO, there’s nothing wrong with that approach, though I’d say there’s nothing magical about it either. Different people respond (and I’m talking mentally/emotionally here as much as physically) to different strategies. Big/small/no breakfast/lunch/dinner in whatever combination.
The really interesting thing (to me) is that people on the lowest end of the caloric scale (living on what many in “modern society” would consider a starvation diet) have (as a group) the longest life spans. They may look (to us) “malnourished” And they won’t be winning any Iron Man races, but they live longer. Sometimes much longer. It kinda suggests that every meal you consume is, in some way, killing you, at the same time it’s nourishing you. Kind of a weird concept but I think there’s something to it. All I really know is that I eat WAY TOO MUCH food on a daily basis! I’d be better off not doing that. If only I would...
@Ken, what you say is true, extreme calorie restriction has been shown in many animals to increase lifespan. But there's a very important lesson to be learned from that: quantity isn't quality. I'll take 80 years of high vitality over 100 years of low vitality. That's a choice, obviously, and I respect if not everyone feels the same.
And I think this dovetails with the discussion. Lifespan isn't health. Modern medicine has increased our average lifespan, but in many cases it's a hollow victory. In the cases of cancer and infection, great! But turning to medicine to correct things that could be handled with lifestyle modification is a Faustian deal, in my opinion.
Faustian, very apt in many cases. Having been seriously immersed in the medical system I have to agree. If medicine can help to cure or manage a condition yet leave one's quality of life reasonably intact I am all for it. Otherwise you will be, in the end, one of the grateful dead.
Overheard at the end of the ice age, “We’ve been having such unnatural weather.”
Also, while this is not on the topic, since you are here let me ask you this: While diet depends on personal bodies and genetics, do you think this is a good idea? Someone said that a diet they have used and that works for people is to eat a hearty breakfast and a dinner and do not eat anything in between at all, except water if they are thirsty.
IMO, there’s nothing wrong with that approach, though I’d say there’s nothing magical about it either. Different people respond (and I’m talking mentally/emotionally here as much as physically) to different strategies. Big/small/no breakfast/lunch/dinner in whatever combination.
The really interesting thing (to me) is that people on the lowest end of the caloric scale (living on what many in “modern society” would consider a starvation diet) have (as a group) the longest life spans. They may look (to us) “malnourished” And they won’t be winning any Iron Man races, but they live longer. Sometimes much longer. It kinda suggests that every meal you consume is, in some way, killing you, at the same time it’s nourishing you. Kind of a weird concept but I think there’s something to it. All I really know is that I eat WAY TOO MUCH food on a daily basis! I’d be better off not doing that. If only I would...
Ken
With all due respect, where is the evidence for this claim, about people on a near starvation diet living longer?
On my phone now so I just pulled the first article that showed up searching: “calorie restriction longevity”
And starvation implies harm, so calorie restriction is more accurate.
I think you are narrowing the problem down precisely Brother Because caloric intake by itself is really not much of an indicator one way or the other. And it was Tvenuto himself that made the comparison earlier in this thread about the very wise comparison of "Quanity vs Quality". Here lies the problem and I'm mainly speaking of my good country the USA. Here in the USA we have more poverty stricten obese people than anywhere on the planet. And it's not so much of a problem of their high calorie intake as it is the types of foods many of these people are ingesting. Because here in the USA we have truly one of the worst diets of any of the industrialized world. Take our fast food joints for instance>> they are geared for making food that tastes good>> and unfortunately not food that has optimal nutritional value
It's the quality of the food that's killing many of us here in the USA I can assure you. It blows my mind how many people I meet that cook all of their food in one of these "GOD Forsaken" microwave ovens>> which truly destroy most of the vital nutrients in many highly nutritional foods unfortunately. I haven't owned or used a Microwave oven since 1999 and I try to avoid them like a bad disease. Also many of our foods are so nutritionally deficient and when you go to the produce section of many grocery stores most all the fruits and vegetables actually look sick to me.
Not to mention all of the MSG laced snack foods and the aspertame laced diet soft drinks that are all slowly killing the people that use them. When I was in the hospital I couldn't even eat more than 30% of the food they brought me because most of it was nothing more than junk food :confused: Now I know that many hospitals have improved in that area over the years but the one I was at served a lot of food that I wouldn't allow a good dog to eat. How many people eat organic Brown Rice? How many people eat at least 3 pieces of fresh fruit a day? Or fresh veggies either? No if it doesn't taste like a Big Mac or one of Taco Bell's finest most people would truly starve themselves because somewhere along the line people went for "taste" rather than "Nutrition" and I have at least 20 more prime examples I could give you all.
Indeed. Often when very obese people go to the doc for some extreme weight loss tactic (gastric bypass etc), it is found that they are actually malnourished, that is, lacking in necessary nutrients. You can have excess calories with inadequate nutrition, and you can restrict calories without being malnourished. Again quality is key.
. 
If only I would...