Bill Doyle: Treating cancer with electric fields

bobze

The one article I briefly glanced over seemed to be claiming that his microscope "magnified objects up to 17,000 diameters"--Whatever that means.

The most powerful light microscopes today can do about 6,500x and resolve images down around 50 nanometers. Certainly the "articles" claim would be impressive then......but, even in the 30's electron microscopes existed with magnification prowess in the millions of times and resolving objects down in the picometers.

Whenever you hear someone on the internet use the word "frequency" followed by a claim; you should immediately put on your skeptical-helmet. It normally means your about to get a deluge of words--they don't really understand, and are hoping you really don't either.

Royal's "claims" seem to be liberally borrowed from prior wooists like Albert Abrams (see my previous reading)--And these still exist in many forms. Just had a lovely discussion with someone a couple of months ago on the net who's "frequency" machine did everything from curing cancer to HIV.

atyy

Couldn't they have done one group with the device switched off?

It seems the basic claim is as good as chemo, but with fewer side effects. Or is it known that patients do markedly worse without chemo?

bobze

I don't know, you'd have to ask their IRB (institutional review board)--My guess is it would be a no go. You can't run placebo trials on GBM, since chemo apparently does help some withholding treatment for a placebo group would be unethical.


These patients the device was tested on had already had conventional chemo. They are end-stage GBM patients either receiving more chemo or the device, I believe.

I honestly don't know that chemo helps that much in increasing life-expectancy. I mean yeah you get small, very small, increasing in life--but at what quality? As a personal aside, its probably one of those diseases that if I had, I'd forgo the chemo and get on with living. Like I pointed out even with surgical resection you are still talking about months to live most likely (% survival at 5 years out with surgery is something like 4%).

The problem is, its so invasive and aggressive and being glial based seems to give it a free pass to traverse the white matter tracts of the brain. In literally no time what started off as a right sided tumor can hop across the corpus callosum and open up on beach front property on the left side of the brain.

Remember I said patients typically present 2 ways? Either they are old and you find it at a lower grade (interestingly enough, you don't do any treatments really till it advances to grade III) and simply wait and watch.....or they are young and present with a grade IV already--Normally by which time symptoms show up its already metastasized all over the brain.

Pythagorean

What about willful subjects that would forego chemotherapy for the device? Or is in unethical in the first place to give them (possible false) hope?

atyy

Well, I hope they have some system in place to collect data from the users of the device, since that's the real trial (even then, will they be able to figure out what's going on without an appropriate control group?)

rhody

I haven't had a chance to digest your comments or lively discussion. I will as time allows after work try to locate as much technical detail on Rife's microscope, to verify to the satisfaction of this intended audience. I don't want to get into treatments, etc... Here is a link on all of Rife's microscopes.

Here is a timeline wiki (read only) Rife's life for those who wish to view it.

This is my observation into the character of this man, he was brilliant, humble and kind beyond words to everyone who knew him. I often wonder if Rife's personality were more like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs who were driven and aggressive, if his inventions and experiments would have been as easily dismissed.

Rhody...

rhody

Bobze,

What you said is true, you failed to mention that when en electron microscope is used on a living bacteria or virus it destroys it. Rife's microscope did not affect the specimen under study, a definite advantage, no ? It could be observed before, during and after treatment.

Rhody...

atyy

Can 10 nm resolution be obtained with visible light whose wavelength is 400-700 nm?

First, a note that magnification is not resolution. Resolution is more important than magnification.

Normal light microscopes have a resolution comparable to the wavelength of light.

It is possible by super-resolution techniques to go better than that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20624966
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22194693

rhody

I found this link while going through all the links in my last post, as luck would have it, the second post from the bottom labeled, Science Tests new magnifier:
atty,

From your last link in your last post:
This uses super resolution microscopy over coming the limitations of light itself, wait, where have I heard this before ? DNA organization can be observed during viral infection and cancer (think folding). Gene 53, the guardian of the genomes because it protects against mutation, when it is inactivated it stops the genome from uncontrolled division and growth, arresting cancer cells. Clodagh O'Shea (video in the link) describes this process using the engineered virus (gene 53 disabled), depending on loss for replication. One must stop to wonder though, what becomes of the engineered virus itself when all of the cancer cells are killed, where does it go, what does it do, wait quietly for more cancer ? What if it itself mutates itself to something not so helpful, what then ? She does not address these issues in the video.

This high tech marvel can now do with real time imaging and state of the art laser techniques what Dr Rife managed to do (crudely, without knowledge of DNA) (with no data recording or playback at full or any desired speed) for a mere pittance almost 90 years before with unprecedented (for the time) resolution and accuracy, through hard work, infinite patience and perseverance. Not to the degree of understanding we have today, but nonetheless, no less impressive to me.

Rife said before he passed away: See last paragraph of the news link of his death.

Rhody...

atyy

Apparently she published it in Nature, and apparently there's a free version available http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20740008 .

rhody

Thanks, if you have read it in layman's terms does it say what I tried maybe unsuccessfully and at best very crudely to convey above ? If you have more questions for us to ponder, that would be great. I love mind blowing ideas, they get me going, they are beg for explanation that just appears beyond our reach. Science is great huh, lol.

Rhody...

P.S. Is transcription factor 53 and Gene 53 one in the same, or something different ? I got this from a quick scan of the paper summary.

atyy

I hope you don't think I'm not a layman!

OK, now I've confused myself with the double negative! I am a layman!

rhody

Thanks, if you have read it, in layman's terms

Amazing what a comma will do to clarify things, huh ?

Carry on Master Yoda, carry on...

Rhody...

bobze

In deed. To see useful things in bacteria you have to kill them. We even do this in light microscopy--Those colorful cells didn't get colorful by themselves. First he put them on a slide, then we cook them, then we color them with toxic dyes. Bacterial cells lack "pigment"--So to say, as do the structures in them. Without dye there isn't much to see.

About the only thing useful to see in a light microscope of unstained specimens is the way something moves (does it tumble? dart? float?)--Aside from that looking at unstained specimens isn't really all that useful. I've looked at plenty of unstained bacterial cells, they are...unremarkable to say the least.

Is there any evidence to support Royal's claims that he was looking at live, unstained specimens and "extracting useful" things about them? Or does this door lead back to a middle of the century newspaper claim and just-so stories told on internet conspiracy websites, copied to other websites, copied to other websites and on into legend?

bobze

p53 is encoded by TP53.

rhody

I'm on it, will produce the best evidence, verifiable, I can find, it may take a bit though.

Rhody...

atyy

I started a discussion in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=574031 so as not distract from electrical treatments.