Reply to comment by Editor – Royal Rife is well known as junk science
The case of Rife is very interesting to me.
Clearly, by today’s interpretations, much of what he thought was wrong (same can be said for most everyone else alive at that time also).
Clearly also, he was a very skilled microscopist, and made many observations far ahead of his time. Sure, he made some generalisations from those observations that have proven incorrect.
Totally agree, that almost everything done in Rife’s name today is quackery.
And Rife himself spent a huge amount of time developing a skill set that was very difficult to replicate. That fact in itself does not invalidate his observations; and it does make them very difficult to replicate.
We now understand far more about the possible types of influence of various forms of radiation (electromagnetic and mechanical) on various types of structures. XRay treatment for cancer is arguably a very coarse version of the sort of treatment modality Rife was attempting to refine and perfect. And the situation in vivo (living reality) in much more complex than that in vitro (between thin glass plates under a microscope).
So it is much more complex than simply saying Rife was a quack.
To my mind Rife himself was a very skilled investigator who made some errors of interpretation and extrapolated in directions that dont work as well as he expected for a host of reasons to do with the complexity of the systems involved. Most of those who followed fall much more into the quack camp as they have not spent the time developing the skill set Rife himself had.
Which leads into a much more complex discussion of the power of belief (the placebo effect). There is now a vast literature demonstrating just how powerful it is, and the three major modalities through which it works, which raises very complex ethical questions for our current medical system.
Is it ethical to tell someone that there is no hope for them, when we actually know that hope itself is at least as effective as 70% of the drugs on the market?
That is a really difficult question.
To my mind, the current system of legal and medical practices has gone down a path that is much more about the profits available to the medical establishment than it is about the wellbeing of the individuals involved. And I am very clear that it is a very complex set of issues, with no hard boundaries, and the balance seems to me to be very skewed at present.
That has certainly been my experience, as someone who was given a determination that I was “terminal cancer” with less than a 2% probability of surviving 2 years (6.5 years ago).
About 80% of the people I know who have followed a set of approaches similar to those I have taken are still alive after getting such a diagnosis. Those who have gone down the strict medical route are all dead.
So I am clear, I am not at all in favour of quackery where it involves taking money from people on false premises (and most of current medical practice actually falls into that category, given the time lag between leading edge research and the distribution of actual current medical practice in terms of the GP patient relationship). So it is really difficult (most GPs are not consciously deceiving people, but nor are most Rife practitioners – both sets of individuals genuinely believe what they are doing – and some don’t).
And giving people belief, does in fact work – a great deal of hard science backing that up (multiple papers by Benedetti et al – and linking out from there eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3055515/).
Just another set of perspectives to give some serious consideration to.
I would certainly support the use of such materials on a surface such as a catheter – which has a short exposure life.
Would not consider them sensible on table surfaces or walls or floors. Much more sensible to make those surfaces as slippery and cleanable as possible with simple technologies involving water and abrasion, and then keeping them as dry as possible to prevent anything growing, and bring in the specialist surfaces for as short an exposure duration as possible. Limits the selection pressure for resistance.
And these are complex issues, and there may be special considerations in some particular contexts.
All I was commenting on was the general conflicting pressure between the marketing need to make profit by selling a lot of product (lower marginal cost of production), and the need to have that product with as short an exposure time as possible to give it the greatest probability of remaining as effective as possible for as long as possible. Just noting that market incentives are in direct opposition to human needs in this case (one of a large and exponentially increasing set).