 |
 |
Cancer |
 |
Before Attempting to Treat Cancer With Frequencies |
Photo: " Lord, Mom's real sick. We could sure use Your help."
The main reason for presenting this case is that it stands as a beacon of hope for those who seek to treat cancer and complicated conditions. The "flip side" is that it also stands as a beacon to warn you of the reality of treating such conditions. For those who yearn for documented "proof" that frequency technology really works, this case will provide it. But it will also call your attention to the fact that restoring health may be more involved than you imagined. The case you are about to read treats two basal cell cancers in the same patient but in two different locations. Usually, basal cell is one of the 'easier' cancers to treat. In this case, neither cancer has spread (metastasized); neither is rapidly invasive; neither is life-threatening cancer. Overall, you would say this was not an especially "involved" situation. But when you are dealing with clinical situations, real disease, real problems, there are important decisions you have to weigh, with consequences you must face if your decisions are wrong. Especially with cancer. On paper, such decisions are easy, like paper trading in the stock market. When there is something of real value at stake, however, like your life or your eye, choices are tougher. In this case, it was my clinical decision to use frequency medicine, and I felt comfortable doing so, based on years of clinical experience. Suppose, though, my decision to use frequency therapy proved fruitless. Then, not only would valuable time have been lost, but the additional invasion of tissue by the cancer could have seriously complicated or jeopardized post-operative reconstruction of the eye, leaving the patient with a potentially serious facial defect. This site is about learning what you can to help yourself to better health. I want to give you all I can to meet that goal and free you from the restrictions of conventional medicine. However, I would be irresponsible if I did not include some warnings to you, so here they are:
I think it is important to ask such questions BEFORE deciding to begin frequency treatment.
Experience is the key, and, unfortunately, there is no substitute for experience.
On the Internet, in the use groups and chat rooms, hardly a day goes by without someone posting a question about which machine to buy or what frequency is best for treating XYZ condition. My response is: There is no single "Best" machine. There is no "Best" frequency. There is no "Best" length of time to apply treatment. In complex cases, many different types of treatment may be required to contain or reverse the situation.
A CASE HISTORY OF CANCER TREATMENT USING RIFE TECHNOLOGY To me, the most exciting thing about using frequency medicine is its ability to treat diseases in an effective, non-invasive, non-debilitating, non-bankrupting fashion. It can be especially helpful in dealing with cancer, moreso if everyone else has given up. It is so seductively easy to get swept up with the idea of finding a machine, using simple, readily available frequencies, then treating complex diseases, especially if you are desperately ill, or someone you love has been diagnosed with cancer. Clinically, I have always learned more from my mistakes than from my successes. Success gives you confidence. Failure gives you wisdom. I submit the following case for you to think about with the hope you will get both confidence and wisdom. It will prepare you if you are trying to decide should you use frequency medicine for a complex condition. The report is long and the language is a little "high sounding", but please, do not be put off by the big words or the length. This is a "real time, real world" case, posted to an Internet Interest Group some time ago. The photos are of a patient with a confirmed diagnosis of two moderate sized, moderately advanced basal cell carcinomas, one located on the lower right eyelid, the other on the upper right chest wall. Both cancers are of long-standing duration. The cancer on the chest wall is the slower growing of the two; it has remained unchanged for a number of years. The cancer on the lower eyelid, the only one for which photographs are posted, is of shorter duration, but more aggressive growth. THE EYE Because the patient experienced a sudden and alarming change in the size and configuration of the eyelid lesion, consultation with an ophthalmologist was scheduled. A biopsy was performed and the pathology report confirmed the diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma. The same procedure was performed on the chest wall lesion with the same diagnosis. The patient was referred to a specialist for surgical removal of the lesions, (Moh's Technique) with intended reconstruction of the eyelid to be performed by the ophthalmologist. The prognosis was guarded with respect to the eyelid, as the cancer had invaded deeper structures which could pose complicated tissue management and esthetic problems during reconstruction. After biopsy, the patient chose to postpone surgical removal, seeking, instead, to treat these lesions with frequency technology. The ultimate goal was to eliminate the cancers, simultaneously eliminating the need for surgery and reconstruction.The patient came for treatment 2 weeks after the biopsy.
This photo shows the lesion just prior to the first treatment. The point of the arrow is the site of the biopsy (in the 4 o'clock position, the very small portion of darkest coloration, clearly demarcated from the rest of the tissue).
The site six days after commencement of frequency therapy. Clearly, frequency application was able to rapidly effect substantial improvement. It is easy to be distracted by the area of the biopsy (again, the very small, darkest coloration the the far right area of the lesion), but please pay attention to the surrounding area. Note especially the reduction in swelling as evidenced by increased visibility of eyelashes above the cancer.
This photo is taken 14 days after the first photo. Thus, over the course of just two weeks of frequency treatment, the area changes, almost miraculously. The quality of the skin is "normalizing", and you can no longer detect the area where the biopsy specimen was removed. Unfortunately, improvement did not continue, and after another week, the photo shows conditions beginning to deteriorate.
New frequencies were determined, and the tissue response was positive. This last photo, taken 6 weeks later shows a stabilized condition with good healing, reversing the pattern of deterioration.
The patient was pleased with the overall response to frequency treatment, but elected not to continue with Rife Frequency Medicine as the primary therapy. Surgical removal of both lesions was scheduled, and frequencies to support tissue healing were substituted for the frequencies that had brought about the positive changes. At presentation for surgery, the surgeon was told about the use of frequency techniques. He was dismissive, but did remark the lesion on the eyelid was substantially improved since he saw it at initial biopsy. Post-surgical examination of the tissue showed no cancer cells present. The surgeon also commented that the procedure was much less complicated than he had expected. The substantial reduction in size of the lesion and the obvious improvement in the quality of tissue permitted minimal removal of tissue, and the final result was most aesthetic. Even at close examination, no one could tell that anything had happened in the area. Best of all, three year follow-up confirms no recurrence of the cancer. THE CHEST A review of the tissue response on the chest provides the most valuable information from this case. Despite being the same patient, with an identical diagnosis, basal cell carcinoma, treated at the same time and with the same frequencies as the eye, the changes on the chest, though positive, were far less impressive. Cancer cells were present in the surgical specimen, requiring additional tissue removal to reach clear margins. Why? I made an important clinical mistake in treating the lesion on the chest wall. I assumed that since it was diagnosed as the same condition as the eye, the same frequencies would be effective against it. This was not the case. Though there was improvement, there certainly was not "cure". Were I to have the opportunity to treat this situation again, I would not make such assumptions. I would treat the chest lesion simultaneously, but separately from the eye, and run the combination of frequencies as long as indicated. FINAL REMARKS When you think about all this, you realize in a grim way why we call it "practice". Although I rely more on alternative medicine than I do in conventional medicine, I acknowledge my respect for my medical colleagues. They know much, and they come by that knowledge through hard work and a desire to help mankind- no less than I. Perhaps one of the reasons organized medicine is failing is because of a dogmatic approach that is too slow to change. As I pointed out earlier with the Australian study, conventional (allopathic) methodologies are not guaranteed to produce results. But neither are you guaranteed results when you turn to alternative or complimentary therapy. Certainly the statistical assessment of conventional (allopathic) cancer therapy is nothing to brag about, but then, can't the same be said of alternative or complimentary treatment? Let us not repeat the mistake and become dogmatic in our approach. Frequency therapy can be very effective. As with many health concerns, however, there is no one single correct answer. | ||||||
