Yeah, that's the lipo-spheres that the video I posted talks about.You ever try doing this, Bucky or ML?
. . . and it's these sorts of thing being rejected for things such as chemo and radiation . . . I know a girl who just died (almost certainly) as a result of "treatment," although, on paper her cause of death was cancer. I'm not sure how correct this is, but allegedly reported in JAMA, even, amongst other places, it's said that people who do nothing whatsoever for cancer fair better statistically in terms of living longer (and probably quality of life, too). . . .
What is Bengston's cancer cure rate in humans?I'm frustrated that Bengston's cancer cure rate isn't being talked about on the streets and in the press, but at the same time, I think he's been very very fortunate about that. Imagine the financial shock to the western world if a virtually free, fast, reliable, painless cure for cancer (and other dread diseases) became common knowledge overnight, something you might be able to learn yourself in a couple of weeks, or some device you could put together for a hundred bucks. Beyond the loss of profits, think about the effects of extending the lives of that many older people. Imagine the pressure from the system to discredit that so they could get back to obscene profits as usual, or get out from other all the extra social welfare payments. Anyone promoting that treatment - energy cure or otherwise - would likely be in for a world of hurt. Think raided laboratory, arrests, seized files, midnight disappearances, so forth, as has happened repeatedly in the past when some brilliant innovator got too far beyond society's envelope of comfort and attracted the wrong kind of attention.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Modern society is just one lie on top of another. People think we have made progress since the dark ages, but we have only replaced one type of superstition with another. In the dark ages, the elite abused religious belief to maintain power. Today it is the same, just a different religion, Scientism. It's just another ism.I'm frustrated that Bengston's cancer cure rate isn't being talked about on the streets and in the press, but at the same time, I think he's been very very fortunate about that. Imagine the financial shock to the western world if a virtually free, fast, reliable, painless cure for cancer (and other dread diseases) became common knowledge overnight, something you might be able to learn yourself in a couple of weeks, or some device you could put together for a hundred bucks. Beyond the loss of profits, think about the effects of extending the lives of that many older people. Imagine the pressure from the system to discredit that so they could get back to obscene profits as usual, or get out from other all the extra social welfare payments. Anyone promoting that treatment - energy cure or otherwise - would likely be in for a world of hurt. Think raided laboratory, arrests, seized files, midnight disappearances, so forth, as has happened repeatedly in the past when some brilliant innovator got too far beyond society's envelope of comfort and attracted the wrong kind of attention.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
What is Bengston's cancer cure rate in humans?
He hasn't got an exact figure but estimates around 80% based on the information he has, last I heard. That figure is based on cases where he learned the outcomes. The problem is, his treatments have been done on a very informal basis, at no charge or pay-what-you like. If someone didn't return, he had no way of knowing why. Over the years he also noted a number of people who, when their conditions began to improve, freaked out from the threat to their worldviews and fled the scene before the course of treatment had concluded.
A note on human nature: One woman whom Bill cured of cancer gave him a bottle of water in payment that had been treated by a different healer, one who had been ineffective in curing her cancer when he treated her!
Given the field effect he believes influenced his controls that were too close to the experimental mice, I wonder what would happen if he spent time in the lobby of a hospital sending healing to everyone there. If the administrators found out, they'd probably kick him out like someone caught counting cards at a casino.
When these sort of things happen I have a hard time reconciling with what happens in our heads.Over the years he also noted a number of people who, when their conditions began to improve, freaked out from the threat to their worldviews and fled the scene before the course of treatment had concluded.
. . . . When the oncologist learned that a non conventional therapy had been used, he was very resented, acted very arrogantly and pressured my relative to go back to chemo. . . .
Treatments are hell. The girl I mentioned knowing above who just died was hardly recognizable after the treatments . . . and she was, before hand, an attractive 30 something woman. The treatments clearly wore her down tremendously.Bill had another sad experience similar to that. A woman came to him immediately following diagnosis and he treated her. After the series of treatments she returned to her oncologist, who reported that there was no sign of the cancer anymore but that it would undoubtedly return. Under pressure from the oncologist and her (the patient's) family, she opted to be treated just to be sure, and the treatments killed her.:(
My own concepts are too unsettled to be helpful here. As to information-based reality from the standpoint of materialist philosophy, search on simulism and Nick Bostrom to get started, but get ready for a heavy intellectual grind.
There is evidence that events are affected by backward causation from the future,
Edited 2014/09/04 7:50 AM PDT
In Schwart'z "The Energy Healing Experiments" I recall several interesting tests done with Reiki practitioners on plants and rats too? Am I wrong? Unfortunately I don't have the book at hand (which reminds me I've lent it years ago and I should ask it back) and I've read it 5-6 years ago.
Does anyone remember the details?
I have read about a study where a team took old medical records and for half of them did remote healing and when they looked at the outcomes of the patients (which had already occurred) they found that those with the healing had better outcomes. Of course they did controls where no healing was attempted and they found statistically random outcomes. This implies that the healing was not only effective,,, but that (to me even more strangely) the effectiveness was even seen with past outcomes. !?!?!?!
Wish I could place my hands on this information so I could offer a link but I can seem to find it.
In medical research, the “gold standard” research methodology involves randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. These trials are helpful in distinguishing the effects of a treatment from the effects of a placebo, but they do not provide the information that is needed by many patients and health care organisations. For example, if I am suffering from lower back pain, I do not want to know whether drug X works better than a placebo in relieving this condition, but which kind of treatment I should seek out of the various available therapies: physiotherapy, acupuncture, osteopathy, and so on.
Probably the best way to answer this question would be a “level playing field trial” in which various possible treatments were compared with each other. Taking the example of lower back pain, in such a trial a large number of sufferers, say 1,200, would be allocated at random to a range of treatment methods. Five treatment methods could be included in the trial, plus one no treatment group. Thus for each method there would be 200 patients. The treatment methods could include physiotherapy, osteopathy, acupuncture, chiropraxis, and any other therapeutic method that claimed to be able to treat this condition. Within each treatment group, there would be five different practitioners, so that in the statistical analysis the variability between practitioners could be compared. There would also be a no-treatment group...
. . . taking the example of lower back pain, in such a trial a large number of sufferers, say 1,200, would be allocated at random to a range of treatment methods. . .
noted. thx.Hey Alex,
I enjoyed this podcast. Thanks for publishing, and interested in reading more details in the book.
Just wanted to mention a quick correction; Semmelweis did not commit suicide. And I agree his story is indeed a fascinating one.