Do we really know what causes cancer? Is it Viruses as Royal Rife proclaimed? Is it parasites as Hulda Clark maintained? Fungi? Bacteria? Overload of mycotoxins from all of the above? Toxins from heavy metals and/or chemicals building up in the body? Skewed genetic expression? Metabolic disorders exacerbated by chronic stress and/or emotional crises? Hormonal disruption? Low voltage at the cellular level? Mitochondrial dysfunction?
Countless theories have evolved over time and still, with the War on Cancer and all, we seem adrift in the search for answers. As the occurrence of cancer has exploded over the last few years, affecting young and old alike, solutions have evaded us, with the most costly and risky “remedies” often merely buying time. That’s not to say there hasn’t been progress, but most cancers continue to take new forms, requiring more study and therapeutic advances. All of them expensive, many of them devastating to the body as a whole.
Cancer now strikes 30% to 50% of all Americans in their lifetime, compared to just 5% at the turn of the 20th century. This is not the result of better screening or recordkeeping — it reflects fundamental shifts in how your body’s terrain is shaped by modern living. What was once rare has become common, and the old explanations are no longer enough.
Small wonder that when Royal Rife advanced the notion (and the hope) that cancer could be resolved without further damaging the body, asserting that he had devitalized bacteria and viruses in a petri dish, he was lauded as a champion by numerous prominent physicians and researchers. His work was discredited by others, most of whom had interests other than finding a cure, and certainly not a therapy they could not control. Rife’s efforts were thus undermined. He was betrayed. And ultimately, his work was suppressed. His story is not unique.
People who have been following us for years know that we hold alternative views regarding cancer. It’s worth noting that our views are not static, meaning they evolve over time as more information becomes available. To say “the science is settled” in any instance is to obscure the fact that the very nature of science is to evolve as new information reveals itself. Thus we do not expound merely on the ability of electrical stimulation to devitalize micro-organisms, but have expanded to include in our discussions the inherent ability of the current, tuned at frequency, to restore balance to the systems in the body. This refers to the metabolism, the lymphatic flow (essential for proper detoxification), oxygenation and effective circulation of the blood, enzyme catalysis, function of the nerves, inflammation management, and so forth. (The FDA, needless to say, prohibits us from making any such claims.)
In this series, we will briefly review some of the evolving theories about cancer and cancer treatments. This is not intended to be an in-depth discussion, but we will refer you to other sources for more thorough examination of potential underlying causes and prospective methods of addressing them. Our purpose has always been to help you connect the dots and help you arrive at decisions best suited for you and your loved ones.
Royal Rife
In the 1930s, Royal Raymond Rife proclaimed the following:
- He had built an extraordinarily powerful microscope capable of viewing living viruses.
- He identified microorganisms responsible for cancer.
- He destroyed these organisms using precisely tuned electromagnetic frequencies, which he called “Mortal Oscillatory Rates” (MORs).
The theory was appealing because it suggested that cancer had a single infectious cause, and that it could be cured noninvasively. It proposed that treatment could selectively destroy disease without harming healthy tissue. This, in retrospect, is a simplistic view.
Though we have built devices for many years that are based on his research, we have long believed that there are often multiple underlying causes that contribute to the disease. And we have always operated on the principle that one size does not fit all in terms of what may be required to address the condition.
Conventional sources, including AI, will tell you that his results have never been independently reproduced. What this conveniently overlooks is the fact that prominent medical doctors who associated themselves with Dr. Rife (including Dr. Milbank Johnson, Professor of Physiology and Clinical Medicine at the University of Southern California; Dr. Arthur Isaac Kendall, Department of Bacteriology at Northwestern University Medical School; and Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, of the Mayo Foundation to name just a few) reported that they had reproduced similar results with multiple patients. You need only read a few articles to learn what happened to those who most supported Rife and his work.
The 1934 cancer clinic study is the central piece of evidence cited by Rife’s supporters, yet it remains historically contested due to the absence of original peer-reviewed documentation. Might the bribery, threats, and destruction of documents and devices have influenced the willingness of researchers to embark on a peer reviewed study?
Another key aspect conventional sources fail to mention is that researchers were unable to observe with their STANDARD microscopes what Rife had viewed with HIS microscopes. In other words, they were using old technology to disprove Rife’s newly developed microscopy. The fact that Rife’s results have been reported as not replicated is clearly by design! The powers that be have ensured that funding is not available to support such testing. Suppression of this ilk continues to this day, not just regarding Rife’s work, but with countless other research that, if proven effective, would upend the system that depends on the public remaining unaware.
We have long supported cancer patients who have integrated multiple therapies into their protocol, with or without their doctors’ knowledge. In our next article, we will complete our discussion of Royal RIfe and his supporters and detractors, moving on to view a panoplay of other theories and approaches to addressing our concerns about cancer. In future articles, we will present an overview of some of the evolving approaches concerning cancer.
As always, we encourage you to do your best to sort facts from fiction as you strive to discern what would best suit you and your loved ones in your quest for health and general well being.
I look forward to experimenting with a device.
The cost is prohibitive in my situation but I am saving my pennies