We have learned to distrust our major news sources, and for good reason.
I consider it to be a very disappointing performance from Wikipedia. Certainly they can do better than that. They have allowed it to become a thinly disguised attack on everything Rife-related. Behind the mask of calling it a biography.
For those of you who have already experienced the truth about this technology, I don’t need to explain how unjust their entry appears. It’s insultingly misguided.
Right off the bat, they fail to mention that Dr. Rife was the foremost microscopist in the world. Probably the greatest who ever lived. His achievements were not equaled for many years after his passing.
The devices that came after Rife have absolutely nothing to do with his biography. The significant changes he made during his life were primarily pertaining to his microscopes and his observations with them. This is equivalent to inventing your own moon rocket and reporting back what you find there.
Obviously, if I do not have my own moon rocket, I cannot confirm or deny these reports. Even if you loan me your moon rocket, I might be motivated to fail with it, just to avoid confirming your results. Especially if I am your direct competitor.
Remember, Royal Rife first viewed living viruses. He observed them throughout their life cycle; and he put forth the notion of pleomorphism, which to a certain extent stood the medical world on it’s head.
Rife postulated that if he de-vitalized the virus he commonly viewed in cancer, he could reverse the disease. And he set about to prove it. And he did. He was extolled by respected members of the medical profession, as well as in the Press.
I don’t see them blaming Edison for all the people who have been electrocuted in the electric chair. Henry Ford is not condemned for all the lives lost in automobiles. Not to mention the fact that most users of Rife machines already have a chronic or otherwise incurable problem which puts them at risk.
The Australian case referred to on Wikipedia was reported to me at the time as being a pair of concerned parents who were unimpressed with the prospects of chemotherapy for their child. They opted to take him elsewhere. It was presumably their intention to try Rife therapy first, which in most cases is a better choice before taking a nosedive into a conventional therapy that has little chance of success, and promises enormous collateral damage whether it works or not.
From that perspective, Rife therapy is a far less hazardous route; and it is totally logical to pursue it first, before embarking on a conventional protocol from which there is simply no return.
The Australian authorities apparently wanted to show that the parents were negligent for allegedly denying their son treatment. How can a government know what therapy is best? They went to the trouble of making it a big deal. What possible motive does the government have to try to force a family to endure a procedure which they do not want and do not trust?
Many alternative therapies have been in use for a very long time; so even if the results are small, the risk is also very small. The most successful cases often combine alternative therapies with conventional treatment, as well as consultation and conventional testing. Among the many kinds of alternative therapies are a fair percentage which are known to improve one’s chances when using allopathic methods.
The active acquisition of alternative therapies prior to conventional therapies is a common routine for many people facing serious illness. It only makes sense to try things which are less harmful to the body than drugs, surgery or radiation.
Then there’s the story about the manufacturer who allegedly kidnapped and murdered someone. As I heard it, all these events occurred in Mexico, so there is no record here of the outcome of the case. I find this point suspicious.
In any event, this person’s entire Rife career appears to have been geared to discredit the therapy. It would not be the first time this has happened in the Rife machine business.
In decades past, other Rife organizations have come and gone that were known to have been placed by a competitive interest, exclusively for the purpose of infiltrating the trade of Rife devices.
Wikipedia’s reference to these cases, and their misstatements about them (not to mention that they are publishing the stories inappropriately and out of context) serves to challenge their founding principles.
If you have not already questioned their credibility, it’s time to do so.
Note: Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.