A Cure For The Common Cold: Geneticists Close To Cracking The Code

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa




Fabrications, eh??

From your link.

* Front Page of SAN DIEGO UNION Newspaper and Article, Dated, June 12, 1931 * Dinner Meeting Attended by Doctor's Practicing in the San Diego Area on Nov 20, 1931 * POPULAR SCIENCE Magazine Article Dated, June 12, 1931 * Additional Published Articles, Research Papers, Patents and Photo's Best Viewed At 1024 X 768 Image Protection Provide by SwitchBlade Since the 30's there have been many books, articles and newspapers published concerning Rife's Research on Cancer and other diseases. Most of his lab notes have long been forgotten about, destroyed or kept under lock and key by a few individuals. These people, for their own selfish reasons, are unwilling to share them with the world.

rife

Like I said, I doubt any of the machines use his exact spec, seeing as most of his lab notes were destroyed.

You can post several dozen links to people claiming to have rife machines, it doesn't mean squat. How are we to know they created the machine to Rife's specs??

[edit on 26-1-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by unityemissions


Followed by:

Eight years ago, I started collecting everything I could find about Rife. What you see here is the work of about 8 different people from all over the world who have managed to locate and share what you see on this website with the world.

If you'll explore the links a bit, you'll see that there is a great deal of his original research and laboratory findings, as well as personal documents discussing the device on the site.

What is missing that you think would be required to test the machine's abilities? Clearly, if people are willing to create, buy, and use these machines, there is enough of Rife's original information out there to do so. Why do you suppose there are people swearing by this machine, while the large majority of the population, as well as the entire scientific community, ignores it?

Do you honestly think that a device with such a presence on the internet HASN'T been seen by a laboratory? You do realize that the laboratories scattered all over the world don't function as one singular unit, right? They can collectively research millions of topics at once. Why hasn't the Rife machine been proven as a cure, then, if the ability to do the research is there, the information is available, and there is nothing stopping it from being researched?

Originally posted by unityemissions

You can post several dozen links to people claiming to have rife machines, it doesn't mean squat. How are we to know they created the machine to Rife's specs??

[edit on 26-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Well, you, along with a few others on this site, have posted claims that they work. If you know this to be true, where did YOU get your information that would be hidden from the rest of the world? If YOU have the information, I guarantee you anyone else with access to the internet does.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I realize that most scientists are foolish morons. I realize that only one in a thousand ( if that ) truly has half a brain and is willing to look outside of what's been taught to him by the institutions he holds so highly. Perhaps it's because the majority of scientists tend to be judgmental. They seek to find conclusions rather than being open minded. They become close minded by getting the majority of their answers from "education" before they even begin doing any research.

You'll know when a scientist has an open mind. They're called geniuses...


I recall referencing Rife on one other thread only. I said much the same as here, that his work was destroyed. Can YOU provide evidence that I said the machines work?

[edit on 26-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I realize that most scientists are foolish morons. I realize that only one in a thousand ( if that ) truly has half a brain and is willing to look outside of what's been taught to him by the institutions he holds so highly. Perhaps it's because the majority of scientists tend to be judgmental. They seek to find conclusions rather than being open minded. They become close minded by getting the majority of their answers from "education" before they even begin doing any research.

You'll know when a scientist has an open mind. They're called geniuses...

And I suppose they're only "open-minded" and "geniiuses" when their research meets your pre-determined conlcusions?

Interesting logic system you've developed for yourself.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You do realize I could say the much the same about you, correct?

Your predetermined conclusion is that if it isn't in the medical literature and/or used in hospitals across the globe, it doesn't exist...

Oh, and for the record, I don't predetermine. I use experience, logic, intuition, and common sense to formulate my understandings and draw ever-changing conclusions.


[edit on 26-1-2010 by unityemissions]

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

You do realize I could say the exact same about you, correct?

Your predetermined conclusion is that if it isn't in the medical literature, it doesn't exist...

That's not my conclusion at all. My stance is that if it isn't in the literature currently, it would be illegal and irresponsible of me to prescribe it to a patient.

Also, please explain to how scientific thought, theories, and texts are rewritten yearly if scientists base all their conclusions on previous work. Wouldn't that suggest a stall in new discoveries and no revisions of current scientific theory? If anything, we're rewriting medical and basic science faster NOW than ever, thanks to the genetic and epigenetic boom, as well as new molecular and atomic technology.

So, please, clarify your statement that scientists only believe what ha already been discovered. I'm genuinely interested in how you explain the new discoveries we continue to make which often contradict or rewrite past theories.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Oh, and for the record, I don't predetermine. I use experience, logic, intuition, and common sense to formulate my understandings and draw ever changeable conclusions.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by unityemissions]

I would beg to differ with that statement, considering you don't seem to believe in the scientific method.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I'm not falling for your strawman. That's not what I said. Please reread. No more follow ups from me. You're no longer worth my time. Take care, doctor.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by unityemissions


From your previous post:

Perhaps it's because the majority of scientists tend to be judgmental. They seek to find conclusions rather than being open minded. They become close minded by getting the majority of their answers from "education" before they even begin doing any research.

So, if the majority of scientists are basing their conclusions on answers from their "education", that is, training that is based on previously studied theory and research, how, then, would they be able to produce the research we see on a weekly basis which rewrites said theory?

Wouldn't that suggest that every scientist helps create an ever-evolving body of scientific study, which is always subject to change based on peer-reviewed and reproducible research?

That sounds like a wonderfully efficient and reliable system to me. But, then, I think you're full of hot air, so I must be one of those close-minded scientists who only knows what I've been told. Silly me.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by unityemissions

 

From your previous post:

Perhaps it's because the majority of scientists tend to be judgmental. They seek to find conclusions rather than being open minded. They become close minded by getting the majority of their answers from "education" before they even begin doing any research.

So, if the majority of scientists are basing their conclusions on answers from their "education", that is, training that is based on previously studied theory and research, how, then, would they be able to produce the research we see on a weekly basis which rewrites said theory?

They stay within the systems they're taught. They contribute one step at a time on top of what's already been done. It's not efficient. It's boxed thinking. It's disturbingly slow, slow, slow...

Wouldn't that suggest that every scientist helps create an ever-evolving body of scientific study, which is always subject to change based on peer-reviewed and reproducible research?

I guess that's the way you see it. I don't.

That sounds like a wonderfully efficient and reliable system to me. But, then, I think you're full of hot air, so I must be one of those close-minded scientists who only knows what I've been told. Silly me.

It seems this would sound so if one were to dedicate their life to such an approach. Interestingly, most scientific breakthroughs have nothing or very little to do with schooling or peer reviewed journals. I doubt even you could honestly claim otherwise.

Originally posted by unityemissions

They stay within the systems they're taught. They contribute one step at a time on top of what's already been done. It's not efficient. It's boxed thinking. It's disturbingly slow, slow, slow...

So, when we discovered PCR, a unique system for amplifying DNA (and later, RNA), we were working within the system we had been taught, despite nothing like this EVER being witnessed before?

When we rewrote the concepts of the appendix and tonsils being useless, once we realized they play some role in the immune system, we were using systems we had already been taught?

When we discovered the oncogene BRCA, a biomarker for predicting a woman's chance for developing breast cancer, we were working with systems we had been taught, despite not even KNOWING that oncogenes existed a few years prior to that?

These are just three discoveries I could think of off the top of my head from the past fifteen years.

Please explain how any of these were products of a system that only reinforces previous ideas, rather than fostering the discovery of new theories?

I guess that's the way you see it. I don't.

And you've provided no evidence for your stance, sadly.

It seems this would sound so if one were to dedicate their life to such an approach. Interestingly, most scientific breakthroughs have nothing or very little to do with schooling or peer reviewed journals. I doubt even you could honestly claim otherwise.

Please see the above discovieries I listed. All of those were the result of massive research efforts at large universities, and were all discovered by scientists who had only ever worked in acadaemia, the same institutions you claim are stifling new discoveries by reinforcing old theory. Once discovered, they were summarily published, tested by other labs, and verified as plausible. At that point, they were further studied by other labs in other nations and improved upon.

For example, PCR was a wonderful discovery, but it wasn't quite perfect. A few years later, a PCR machine was invented using a new enzyme that was discovered in thermus aquaticus. A few years after that, we learned how to perform reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using VASTLY different enzymes and theories, basically incoporating viral theory into a new field of study. After that, a few scientists discovered that this system could by hybridized to fluorescent dyes, creating the microarray system we use in high-throughput genetics currently.

All of these advances in PCR were discovered through novel research which tested the boundaries of current genetic theory. They were discovered by vastly differently labs in various countries, and were all the result of applying BASIC theory to ADVANCED problems and theorizing a NEW solution, rather than forcing the old solution into a new problem.

Now, I'll ask again. Please explain how our constantl evolving scientific body is the result of a stalled scientific system.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Seriously, this is the last reply you'll ever get from me. See my u2u. You're now on ignore. I ask you once more to reference my previous post. I never said no discoveries can be made. I said maybe 1 in a thousand scientists use their brains and think outside the box. There are more than a thousand scientists in the world now, correct? The evidence of progress doesn't equate to an evidence of efficiency. My claim is the system is flawed, as is the scientific method. It's been reworked over they years. Who's to say it was ever perfected at all? I have no box. You do. End of story. Goodbye.

reply to post by unityemissions


I posted your quote for you. If you feel the need to retreat from your own words, that's not my problem.

I also find it laughable that you feel the thousands of new discoveries every year are the result of only a handful of scientists. If you'd spend a little time looking over any scientific periodical, you would see that new and radical findings are made regularly, contributing to a constantly changing body of knowledge. These discoveries are made worldwide, which makes it a bit silly to think any one institution or curriculum produces all the scientists in the world.

But, as you've said, you're putting me on ignore. I assume this means you have no ability or desire to explain your own words.

Getting back to the topic of this thread.

Human rhinovirus infection is responsible for half of all asthma attacks and is a factor in bronchitis, sinusitis, middle ear infections and pneumonia. The coughs, sneezes and sniffles of colds impose a major health care burden in the United States—including visits to health care providers, cost of over-the-counter drugs for symptom relief, often-inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and missed work days—with direct and indirect costs of about $60 billion annually.

This very quote from my openning post is the reason they will never release information on how to cure the common cold, too much money to lose, big business will never allow it to happen.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
Getting back to the topic of this thread.

Human rhinovirus infection is responsible for half of all asthma attacks and is a factor in bronchitis, sinusitis, middle ear infections and pneumonia. The coughs, sneezes and sniffles of colds impose a major health care burden in the United States—including visits to health care providers, cost of over-the-counter drugs for symptom relief, often-inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and missed work days—with direct and indirect costs of about $60 billion annually.

This very quote from my openning post is the reason they will never release information on how to cure the common cold, too much money to lose, big business will never allow it to happen.

Why would they lose money? I would think the first company to patent a very effective cure would stand to make billions of dollars annually. The name recognition alone would boost sales for all their other drugs and medical equipment.