I really have to give those guys at McGill University's Office for Science and Society credit. They're fast. In fact, they've already uploaded video for all the events at the Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium. Here's the main page with the videos (the 2010 Trottier Symposium occurred on October 17, 18, and 19), and here are the individual links:
- 2010 Lorne Trottier Roundtable (moderated by Dr. Joe Schwarcz)
- 2010 Lorne Trottier Public Syposium
- Investigating Pseudoscientific & Paranormal Claims with James Randi
My "friend" also reports that a great time was had by all and he can't begin to express how grateful he is to Dr. Joe Schwarcz, Dr. Ariel Fenster (to whose chemistry class he gave a talk on Tuesday), Dr. David Harpp, Emily Shore, and, of course, Lorne Trottier, who funds this conference every year and, "we" both hope, will continue to fund it for years to come.
Sounds like you had a good time. Thanks for the links and videos.
The symposium was very entertaining and I though it was quite well-attended. It was interesting to compare the respective styles of Drs Shermer, Goldacre and that "friend" of yours. The first two were more showman-like; your "friend" was more sober, which was fitting given the grimmer focus of his talk. And only two kooks during the question period, too; though the lawyer with his Rrrroyal Rrrrraymond Rrrrrife obsession wasted everybody's time.
McGill has Joe Schwarcz.
My university has Magda Havas.
It is just not fair dammit.
Never heard Shermer speak before, but his starting off with an Arnold joke was amazing.
Wish I could have been there (and I have been to Montreal this previous week-end and will be there the next week-end) but I'm having my many projects deadline this Friday and next week are the finals for my 2 months semesters.
Wayward son... life is not fair. My university has Jennifer Jacobs whose homeopathic treatments in third world countries are cited by Dana Ullman! (as a student I got to complain anonymously as they seek a new dean for that department, which I did) Oh, and we also have (oh, I really hope it is "had") Henry Lai who did some freaky research in support of the late Hulda Clark.
Good quality recording, too. Too many white men. :)
I skipped over Shermer. Your "friend" did a nice job, pointing out the common features of the testimonials* and questions to ask. The end was poignant. Ben Goldacre was energetic if a bit unfocused (he talks fast enough to get a lot in, though). I wish he had spoken more about Rath, SA, and the TAC, or at least drawn more of a sociological thread through all of the topics.
I won't go into the need for a far more critical assessment of the corporate context....
Oy, they needed a trap door or a big hook for some of the questioners.
*I still think there's something fundamentally unjust about a situation in which people are able to make claims about their condition and treatment without the doctors involved being able to respond or refute them, especially in an area in which health and lives are at stake. It just doesn't seem right. Maybe the best way to address it would be organized public pressure on the people to authorize the release of information on where they were treated or the relevant records to back up their claims. Don't know.
response to YVES MENARD posting:
I am the fellow that he so ignorantly referred to as a "kook" who wasted everyone's time with the reference to DR. ROYAL RAYMOND RIFE.I am not insulted and couldn't care less about his abusive comment. My objective was to use this type of forum to make everyone aware of a particular instance of ALTERNATIVE medicine and method of treating cancer which was worthy of public attention and further proper scientific investigation. Dr. Rife's theory for the cause of cancer being "micro-orgainsms" ( now known as viruses) and the treatment he developed using specific radio frequencies elaborated over ten years of testing were subsequently proven to be effective in a controlled scientific experiment in 1934 under the auspices of the University of Soutern California with the collaboration and participaation of six of the top doctors in the United States.
I do not want to be confrontational in responding to Mr. Menard's gratuitous and uniformed comment, which would be laughingly easy because finding a true cure for cancer is a subject which is so important for those of us looking for a legitimate alternative to the FAILED conventional mainstream approach to treating cancer, we will not achieve any major breakthrough unless we all collaborate in a civilized and respective manner towards this goal.
I am certain that Mr. Menard has no idea who RIFE is, or if he does then he has not studied his work sufficiently and does not comprehend the potential signifcance of his method of treating CANCER with a non-intrusive RADIO FREQUENCY therapy which is an adaptation and advancement of the original electrotherapy theory of NIKOLA TESLA, whose name I suppose Mr. Menard also does not know or if he does he probably also considers his hundreds of international patents to be a waste of time.
I was more shocked that even Dr. Shermer was unaware of RIFE'S name, which I found incredulous since he publishes a magazine called SKEPTIC for whom a potential "PSEUDO" scientist like RIFE would be a glorious and easy target...if RIFE'S work could have been so easily discredited. Fortunately for all of us, his achievements cannot be so easily dismissed or trashed.
Mr. Menard , and all others reading this response, please take the time to read about DR. ROYAL RAYMOND RIFE
Be very careful what you wish for, Mr. Maliniak, when you request that I read up on Rife's quackery. You just might get it, and the result might not be to your liking. :-)
I would have loved to have been at the symposium.
Incidentally, leon, while viral infections (e.g. HPV) are associated with certain cancers, it is certainly not the case that they are all caused by viruses.
Unless you or Rife have some solid, peer-reviewed evidence showing otherwise, of course?
The Wikipedia entry for Mr Rife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife) is not encouraging. But then, it's been edited/censored by those evil AMA types, hasn't it?
response to ORAC.
Thank you for your comment. Even though it is not entirely favourable,this is exactly the type of discourse I had hoped to encourage at the symposium. I don't mind if you READ up on RIFE,and if you find out that I am wrong, so be it, but you should certainly reserve your conclusion about quackery until AFTER you have read it, not before.Please understand that I am not a blindly devoted advocate of RIFE science by any means.This would be stupid. All that I am saying is that I have researched many alternative cancer treatment theories and methods and most of them do not stand up to even superficial scrutiny. But some of these pseudo sciences have enough ANECDOTAL, and in some instances, QUASI-SCIENTIFIC evidence to justify their being properly and further investigated by the accepted "scientific method". That's what I am trying to advocate should be done with the RIFE method.I researched it extensively with the added cynical and skeptical eye of someone who was formerly a trial lawyer for thirty years, and that of a care giver looking for a real and practical cure for his wife, and I concluded that the information and evidence about RIFE'S work is at worst "inconclusive", but still sufficiently compelling and preponderant to warrant further mainstream scientific study.
My intention is not to get into arguments for the sake of confrontation or posturing so I will not rebut your comments about VIRUSES, which may or may not be true. Instead, as a person who is passionate about finding a true cure for cancer, which seems to elude the mainstream medical community, I just want to bring attention to alternative approaches which DO seem to merit further evaluation, like RIFE. If such a FAIR review of the RIFE technology proves it to be of no value, then we will all dismiss it in good conscience and seek an answer elsewhere.Perhaps the HYDROGEN PEROXIDE THERAPY which I have added to my wife's cancer treatment protocol after months of research, and which brought her immediate and dramatic benefits, after having myself concluded that the current attempts to revive the RIFE technology are NOT reliable, will be the non-conventional miracle which saves her life...but the more target specific protocol of the RIFE technique...if it was perfected and valid...would have been my ultimate preference.
We spend so much time and money on all sorts of research,we should be able to somehow organize a proper scientific study of the RIFE theory.With today's technology it should not be very expensive and should not take very long.
One adversarial comment: If we really wanted to be fair and and balanced in this discussion and not unduly prejudiced towards only mainstream ideology we would be justified in saying that the sad truth is that the conventional treatment methods for cancer are grossly inadequate and ineffective and that some new perspectives are required if we are to make any meaningful "breakthrough". As to the vaunted "peer reviewed, double blind, control group,longitudinal scientific studies", how many DRUGS have been approved after such methodology only to be removed from the market a few years later when they were discovered to be dangerous and to have killed many people? I had prepared a list of at least 26 such withdrawals in the last ten years and I would have mentioned them at the symposium, but we did not get into any real EXCHANGE with the panel, so I did not bring it up. Consequently, this sacred cow of REAL SCIENCE is not an iron-clad guarantee of legitimacy either.
To conclude, let's just organize a proper look at RIFE and let the cards fall where they may.
Assertions in ALL CAPS must be a higher standard of evidence than "peer reviewed, double blind, control group,longitudinal scientific studies". Either that or it is the hallmark of a whackaloon.
As a former trial lawyer, Mr. Maliniak must be familiar with the adage, "If the law is on your side but the facts are not, pound the law. If the facts are on your side but the law is not, pound the law. If neither the facts or law on your side, pound the table (or alternatively pound your opponent)."
It would appear that Leon Maniak is pounding both the table and his opponent.
Any response, even an insulting one such as yours, is better than no response at all, so I still welcome even this type of exchange. At least it brings more attention to this important subject. Moreover, you will not draw me into a battle of meaningless personal attacks and counter-attacks.So, if you respond to this rebuttal, I will not counter...and you get the last word. Isn't that great?
I will also resist the overwhelming urge of a former trial lawyer to be confrontational in responding to gratuitous and irrelevant comments such as yours about my writing style because it is counter-productive, or should I say .....COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.
( This style of EMPHATIC writing is, in my opinion, very effective in bringing attention to, and HIGHLIGHTING particular thoughts in what would otherwise be a complicated and unbroken landscape of indistinguishable text. It is intended to replace the inflections and empahsis that we make in ordinary speech and makes it more colourful AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. I feel it makes it possible for people to be able to find, focus on, retrieve and review certain central concepts of a writing much more readily).
Anyway, I like it....so there !
BUT I DIGRESS.
No amount of malicious and unfounded personal abuse by anyone who has not made the slightest reference to the SUBSTANCE of the matter which is under discussion has any value, nor can it dissuade me from the importance of bringing this issue of a potentially beneficial ALTERNATIVE science to CURE CANCER to public attention, and so I will continue do so.
Had you responded by saying you were an EXPERT on the claims of the RIFE science and had researched it extensively before making your comments, and that you were in disagreement, then your views would be of some relevance and value.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SUCH EXPERTISE?
HAVE YOU DONE EXHAUSTIVE AND IN-DEPTH RESEARCH ON THE QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOUR FINDINGS?
If you explain your position, as I have done in my case, and if it has merit and validly discredits the opinion I have developed on the potential benefits of RIFE technology, then I will be the FIRST one to acknowledge and defer to such findings and abandon my campaign to get this particular instance of "PSEUDO" medicine properly studied by the mainstream medical and academic communities where it may finally become REAL SCIENCE.
Until such time ..... ALL I AM LOOKING FOR IS A FAIR INVESTIGATION .THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH JUST ASKING THAT WE FIND OUT THE TRUTH.
LORNE TROTTIER's philanthropy has given us a unique opportunity to hold civilized discourse in a prestigious forum, where a friendly exchange of ideas may lead to some breakthrough in the way we look at many things, including our approach to disease in general and cancer in particular..The chance to challenge conventional wisdom and explore other ideas TOGETHER.
Let's not waste this opportunity with petty, personal attacks.
If you have something pertinent and substantial to offer, let's hear it...in fact I welcome it... or else it is YOU who should stop "pounding his desk" in this display of meaningless indignation and frustration.
Instead, we need an HONEST and productive discussion on the issue at hand.Too many thousands of people continue to die or to suffer horribly because the medical research community is fixated on it's obsession with toxic and ineffective drugs and other intrusive and barbaric techniques.
It's not the fault of the doctors. They are on the front lines of this war and use whatever the research establishment provides them. I am sure they would welcome more effective, less intrusive and less toxic solutions, or better still, a real CURE.
It was a very enjoyable evening, and it was good to hear your "friend" give you and your blog a mention. Randi the following evening was, of course, amazing.
I apologise on behalf of Montreal and McGill for Leon Maliniak and the JFK guy.
Oh, and here's what the McGill Reporter had to say: http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2010/10/pseudoscience%E2%80%99s-…
Oh my! Speak of the (non-existent) devil! This evening, my SO brought a "25 cent special" he got at a nearby yard sale : Kevin Trudeau's " More Natural 'Cures' Revealed" ( 2006), I started rifling through... * et voila!* , Royal Rife! Revealed!
Instead of all-caps, you could, particularly on sites that allow simple HTML, use italic or bold text. Emphasis created as required without either being shouty (which as a 'Netizen you should know is considered rude) or appearing crank-like (all-caps treatment is, sadly, too often a sign of crankiness).
There are two reasons why I suspect that the original Rife techniques you are so enamoured of are unlikely to pan out the way you would like:
(1) The device is reported to be a "directed radio frequency energy 'beam ray' tube machine". The name strikes me, personally speaking, as sketchy enough. However, the 'radio' part suggests a very minimal biological effect (see, for example, Orac's post http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/oh_no_school_wifi_is_making_o…).
(2) You yourself make the statement (comment #8) "Rife's theory for the cause of cancer being "micro-orgainsms" ( now known as viruses)" - but as I stated before, it is certainly not the case that viruses cause all cancers. A hallmark of a lot of quackery is some sort of One True Cause claim.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on Rife links to a 2008 LiveScience article (http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html) about a physicist at the University of Arizona who is suggesting a similar therapeutic approach to viral infections, using lasers. However, as of that time he suggests they are years away from any sort of clinical therapy. It would be really nice if the LiveScience article had linked to journal articles describing this, as I'm not keen on digging through PubMed or Google Scholar. At any rate, even if this does pan out, it is hardly an endorsement of what currently passes for Rife devices, nor will it lead to a cure for all the myriad form of cancers.
Thank you for your comments, which are at least dignified and constructive, both with respect to my use of certain formatting techniques, which may be excessive, and because your are the first one to actually address the substance of the discussion.
Your reference to my comment that RIFE is said to have claimed that all cancers are caused by micro-organisms is one of the things that is unresolved and unclear and which require the type of further study which I am trying to advocate for.Even if it turns out that he is only right about a few cancers, and that they could be destroyed by radio frequency, then this would still be a tremendous advance.
I don't know where you got the definition and description you offer of the RIFE machine but I do not believe that is how he described it and there are many other characterizations.
To get the whole story right from the horse's
mouth everyone can go to the following link;
Once this science is studied in detail, with an open mind and with no preconceived notions or prejudices, and if it proves to be a scam or to be of no value, then I will the first to abandon it and look elsewhere for a solution.
At least you have the civility to address the subject under discussion and not resort to personal insults like some of the previous commentators, who, unburdened by any knowledge of the material and without the slightest idea of what this is all about have the temerity to discredit it out of hand and resort to playground tactics.
Great "scientific" attitude.
LORNE TROTTIER has gone to great lengths to give us a forum in which the general public has the unique opportunity to hold honest discourse and exchange ideas with the academic and scientific establishment, so we should not waste it on irrelevant personal attacks.
At least this is stimulating discourse and debate and drawing attention to this particular alternative science, which was my main objective.
On a funny note, ever since your constructive comments about my formatting style, I seem to have lost all those tools on my toolbar! Talk about a conspiracy !
Our friend Leon has a blog:
and a hair loss treatment:
and is interested in monatomic gold:
Maybe no one reads my long-winded responses, but here it goes anyway.
Firstly, thank you for looking me up on GOOGLE and seeing all the other "pseudo-scientific"
subjects I am interested in, and especially for continuing these blog posts. Forgive me for exploring the entire realm of knowledge and not limiting myself to the mind numbing restrictions of conventional wisdom. This is exactly how I had hoped this process of raising public awareness to the work of RIFE would proceed and progress, so you have inadvertently fallen right into my trap by EXPOSING my other areas of interest! I was beginning to worry that the BUZZ had stopped.
O.K., that was a bit of a return shot, but again I will resist what is becoming more and more of an overwhelming temptation to respond to you with the same type of unjustified venom as you are directing at me or to attack you personally rather that address the merits of the issue under discussion. We'll leave that to a later time , should these irrelevant, immaterial and unfounded personal assaults continue.
Please don't provoke me any further on that basis and I will confine myself to the subject at hand in a civilized fashion and gladly have all the heated debates, disagreements and exchanges you want, in order to further the legitimate debate into the main topic - RIFE.
I went to great lengths in previous posts and at the symposium to explain my personal situation, having endured, and continuing to endure, two bouts of cancer in my family. I did this precisely so that people would believe in my sincere passion about this issue and understand that my sole motivation is to advocate for an improvement in the way this disease is approached. If the RIFE science is examined in a proper university environment and proven to be a scam, I will be the first to abandon it. What are you afraid of ?
Can't you recognise when a person, who is not a medical professional, has an honest, and moreover, practical interest in trying to help a situation which is sadly in need of help? There are many people like myself out there who are desperate for a real cure for cancer and have been driven by necessity to become directly involved in the process. Most of them raise money, or help in other ways, GOD bless them...I want to be more involved in the actual process so I do research and draw attention to particular alternative ideas.
Why do you think there is such an overwhelming groundswell of public interest in this so-called "pseudo-science" ( about cancer)? It's because people have lost faith in the mainstream conventional wisdom and approach. There have been many advances, but they are mostly technological and the situation is a nightmare and a catastrophe.Look at the statistics yourself.
The doctors are NOT at fault.
Doctors use the tools they are given by the research community but they would surely love to be provided with less toxic, less intrusive and more effective techniques, and they would be thrilled to actually CURE cancer.
If some other form of non-intrusive, target-specific therapy, such has RIFE, has any possible merit, we have an obligation to investigate it fairly and not to trivialize or minimize it just because it is not a "double-blind" science YET.
Even Dr. Schwarz, in his article in the Gazette this Saturday, coined the phrase that " all science starts with anecdotal evidence"
By the way, in your feeble attempts to try to discredit me by pointing out some of the other ALTERNATIVE sciences I have investigated or commented on, without again addressing the merits of the issue of RIFE which I am trying to bring legitimate attention to , all you are doing is demonstrating how you are interested only in character assassination and not in civilized discourse.
By the way, thank you for bringing attention to my HAIR GROWTH site because I myself would never have dared to take advantage of this purely academic environment, where I am interested only in the non-profit issue of advancing the cause of CURING CANCER, to promote a personal commercial venture or to have sought publicity for that site.
That HAIR LOSS initiative is unashamedly and admittedly, at this stage, a true "PSEUDO-SCIENCE". A radical new theory about the true genetic cause of hair loss, and a completely new and proven effective method to treat it, which I have come up with after thirty years of research. It has worked on my 62 year old bald scalp, going against all the conventional wisdom, and the results have already been replicated( the magic word) in preliminary tests with other subjects of all ages.
In fact this HAIR LOSS theory and my research and investigation of the subject is a classic example of the normal sequence of events in the progression of an idea from a purely intuitive theory,i.e., Pseudo-science, or science which has not yet been subjected to double-blind studies, and to one which eventually gets tested, confirmed or rejected in appropriate experiments.
So instead of embarrassing me by implicitly denigrating my involvement in a HAIR GROWTH study,( egad...not a hair growth study) I am proud of this effort and of the new perspectives I bring to this field, and I appreciate your having drawn attention to it.
Not only does it NOT discredit me as you had hoped, but in my frank admissions on that site that this is a THEORY in its preliminary phases, and where I am self-deprecating in not exaggerating the results, it will further demonstrate to people that I have a sincere and credible outlook on seeking new knowledge in a balanced and unprejudiced way without pandering to the manifest conflicts of interest which compromise other scientific endeavors.
But far worse, in your efforts to discredit me personally,you have intentionally produced an unbalanced and biased report of my other activities by conveniently omitting to also direct people to my non-commercial article entitled "PREVENT DUCTAL BREAST CANCER BY PUMPING AND DRAINING A WOMEN'S BREAST ON A REGULAR BASIS". This THEORY received favourable feedback and commentary from the Dr. Susan Love Foundation to the effect that
" I MAY HAVE HIT ON SOMETHING"
This too is an example of what is for now only a PURE thought science theory but it is logical and intuitive, makes perfect sense, and if this is ever properly debated in the public forums and then subjected to proper scientific study, it may be proven to be effective as well, and if not, we will discard it.
Why don't you stop making irrelevant comments and address the actual issue of whether or not RIFE technology has any merit. Do something constructive.
If RIFE is legitimate science we'll all be very happy. All except those in the pharmaceutical field. If it is not valid, the general public is not as stupid as you think and they will unceremoniously dump it...as will yours truly.
Final comment to all who care:
The adversarial blog posts following the symposium seem to have stopped. I hope this indicates that I have succeeded in bringing enough attention to RIFE's approach to treating cancer with non-intrusive radio frequency therapy that some people in this McGill academic environment will actually investigate its merits and others will refrain from making any further personal attacks on someone who is just trying to engage in an open-minded discourse to see if we can improve the current state of affairs.
I am not the only one trying to bring attention to this RIFE method. There are already numerous suppliers of these types of frequency generators out there and many advocates with far greater access to the public than me. But it is still not in the mainstream public consciousness, and more importantly, nothing practical is being done about it.
The problem is that the people trying to revive this science, and the various companies selling this stuff have major disagreements as to what the original parameters of RIFE's treatment were,and their divergent views makes the issue look like a soap opera.
Consequently,anyone looking for a legitimate and effective alternative to treating cancer NOW, such as myself, cannot rely on the current state of this art.
While dismissing most forms of pseudo-science, as I myself have done with the vast majority of them, I feel it is imperative that at least this one form of alternative science,this RIFE theory and his technique, be subjected to proper scientific testing and either verified or discarded.
I have added my voice to this initiative firstly, just to bring more attention to this issue by speaking up at this symposium and elsewhere, but I will not be satisfied with only this academic exercise.
I want to organize a medical research project which will conduct proper scientific experiments into RIFE'S science, find his original lab notes and the results of the USC experiments, and then attempt to recreate his original treatment protocol, elucidate the correct frequencies and other parameters of his method, which were previously proven to cure cancer, and do trials to test it on volunteer patients.
I appeal to anyone who attended this symposium or who saw the broadcast to communicate with me if they can contribute in any way to the realization of this objective.
My e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
The adversarial blog posts following the symposium seem to have stopped. I hope this indicates that I have succeeded in bringing enough attention to RIFE's approach
No, it means we are ignoring you. That is great you will investigating this, but it looks like you will have to fund it yourself.
Normally, I would not have dignified your comments with a response, but since I know that other people are reading these posts, and since it is in the interests of this initiative to have the debate continue, I am compelled to somewhat more aggressively defend myself against these type of remarks.
You say, "WE" are ignoring you?
Do you now purport to speak for the entire academic and scientific community at the symposium ? What total rot and what arrogance.
It may interest you to know that I have already received the type of attention for this subject, and the type of feedback, that I had hoped to generate in attending this conference, both from the general public and from people in the system who can do something about it.
So you do NOT speak for everyone and I am NOT being "ignored" at all. There are many people who are desperate for an answer and who are not afraid to look for the truth wherever it may lead and no matter how it may challenge conventional wisdom or threaten vested interests.
The doctors, who are on the front lines of this battle against cancer, are doing a WONDERFUL job, and I am truly appreciative and thankful to them, but they are overwhelmed by it. It is the research community which is letting them down by not providing doctors with adequate and effective tools to actually CURE CANCER once and for all.
I wish you would stop this childish playground behaviour as well as these personal attacks and taunts, and actually be constructive and address the substance of the topic under discussion, which is the validly of the RIFE science.
Moreover, it may interest you to know that I have in fact already taken the initiative to have this project funded, and have spoken to research teams and to the executives of a University in Israel to discuss how such a research project could be organized and financed.
I attended the symposium because I hoped, and continue to hope that someone at McGill, my alma mater, where I spent eight glorious years, would take notice of this RIFE story and take the initiative to set this research process into motion here.
So, as you see, I am not just interested in having endless academic debates.I want to actually do something concrete to find a solution. Not just to raise money to throw into the bottomless pit of conventional research, but to be involved directly in trying to investigate a potential cure, even though it may be derived from what is for the moment, non-conventional, alternative science.
My past experience taught me that you do not have to be a medical professional to make a contribution in this field, so nothing will deter me, and I will continue until I achieve this objective and organize a proper research project into this potential method of curing cancer.
Everyone will have to decide for themselves what team they want to be one and either participate in this initiative or sit on the sidelines.
I would like to applaud you for your very reasonable efforts to bring attention to Rife's works. Even though I have yet to review the material, I did listen to the podcast of this years presentations and was appaled at the treatment you received here and also on this blog....certainly considering the theme of this years symposium.
just a couple of observations and comments....as I have also written to the symposium suggesting they look at better candidates to have discuss the Pseudoscience topic....the 3 of Goldacre, Gorski and Shermer all have hidden agendas with 2 selling books and Gorski practicing mainstream breast cancer therapies/surgeries! I disagree with your comment that todays Drs. are doing a wonderful job in the front lines battling cancer.....cancer is out of control and look at all the money that is being pumped into the research....which continues to increase. Yes Dr. Gorski....death from not treating cancer is worse than that of chemo treatments.....but then we put your fellow Motown physician Dr Kevorkian in jail for compassionate end of life care.
The entire group at this symposium just seem to be agreeing with each other and presenting the obvious quackery that has taken place.....but let me assure you that there are "alternative therapies" out there today that are being overlooked....but not mainstream medicine. Our problem in the US is that Physicians and healthcare centers still flourish while patients suffer.....there has to be an encouragement for better outcomes...not just providing standard of care. This would have a much better forum if there was some discussion on possibly opposing views on potential new therapies....not just continuing to take credit for exposing those who profit from pseudoscience....this was entertainment, not thoughful and meaningful talk on the important issues that face all of us.
I did send an email to the hosts of this symposium suggesting they consider an outstanding researcher for future events...Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories". His work not only exposes the current Pseudoscience that all of face today in the fields of obesity, disease and diet....but will walk you through the dynamics which allows good science to be buried....and we continue to ignore his absolutely immpecable research.....and if you want a humerous, yet informative piece, take a look at this..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA&feature=related.
Again Mr Maliniak, let me be the first to appologize to you for the disrespect you have been shown and I will be e-mailing you in hopes to learn more of the work you are involved with.
TO: BILL UEKER
Thank you for your kind comments.
I also agree with you that it would be appropriate, in the interests of these symposiums being truly a "forum for discourse", that a rebuttal group be allowed to speak, to plead the case for some of the legitimate "alternative sciences" that have some anecdotal and/or quasi-scientific evidence to support them, and it is something I have already proposed to the organizers of this event.
As for the "abuse" I was subjected to, thank you for your sympathy. I expected malicious comments because people are resistant to ideas which challenge the status quo or which threaten their own interests, but I endured it in the hope that despite this initial reaction, some of them would at least examine the whole RIFE story, and that is in fact what has happened.
I am not a blind advocate of any form of alternative science. On the contrary, seeking a cure for cancer for the practical urgency of saving my wife, I have no patience for internet "fairy tales" or conspiracy theories and dismiss most of them. The RIFE theory and method, however, is detailed and complicated and it is very serious science, which will be obvious to all those who take the time and trouble to examine the material. They will have to acknowledge its potential merits , even if it has not yet been subjected to the standard scientific method.
Unlike some of the others you refer to, I have no hidden agenda. I only want to see a dramatic improvement in the way we treat and CURE catastrophic illnesses.If I read one more story about a person dying after a "courageous battle" with cancer, I will throw up. Of course it's courageous, HEROIC even. How else can you describe enduring year after year of "poisoning" with toxic drugs which interfere with basic bodily functions, kill healthy cells along with only some the cancer cells and suppress the immune system, radiation which burns and disfigures,and the ultimate insult and intrusion ,surgery, which does nothing more than remove the most recent tissue where the cancer has moved to, WITHOUT TRACKING DOWN or curing the ROOT cancer.
Surgery is in fact the WORST example of treating the SYMPTOMS rather than the disease. I know that for now, in the absence of anything better, it is unavoidable and even essential, but we should strive to find a better solution.
In the end, though, we must all work together and co-operate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility if we are ever to achieve any meaningful breakthrough in the way we deal with issues of health and illness. This should be the ONLY OBJECTIVE because the present system is flagrantly inadequate.
Although there might have been a smidgen of truth behind some of his wacky theories, Royal Rife was largely considered a quack by his peers. People have also been successfully prosecuted and fined in the US (fraud & medical quackery) for endorsing and selling these useless cancer "treatments". Click here for details at Quackwatch!
IMHO Mr Maliniak would like us to believe in Rife because he'd also like us to believe that Rife's theories will lend creedence to his own new & revolutionary method to grow hair on a cue ball. For which, incidentally, he earns about 30 bucks, and presumably a commission of another $50 or so on anyone foolish enough to buy the amazing affiliate software/products that will help instantly turn your home computer into a Hair growing machine!!!
This software is also freely available on the internet. True to his profession as a lawyer, Mr Maliniak has also been careful to disclaim both his promotional statements and the efficacy of his "treatment". The airtight disclaimer is presumably to preclude charges of making fraudulent medical claims. Although not on quite the same level as pushing fraudulent cancer cures, scamming people with false hopes of regrowing their lost hair is still pretty low.
There have been various schemes to market ineffective "cures" for male pattern baldness over the years. This is now a "big business" and is increasingly being regarded much more seriously by the FTC as outright fraud. Some recent FTC judgements regarding products making unsubstantiated claims to cure baldness may be of interest.
After considering the oncological insight provided by our "resident" legal counsel, perhaps there's a doctor in the house who can now competently advise us if Born-Again-Hair risks being similarly charged under Section 5 of the FTC Act for making false or unsubstantiated representations by simply advertising their purported baldness cure, despite any disclaimers and glowing testimonials from their satisfied customers?
To ROBERTO and ANONYMOUS,
I thought this posting site was dead and so I did not check it for a while but what a pleasant surprise to see that the NUTS in the peanut gallery are still active.
Once again I see that there are a few uncivilized and hostile people making personal attacks on someone who is just trying to stimulate a legitimate discussion about such an important topic as finding an alternative approach to curing cancer. Worse than that, they do so without making any informed scientific comment about the actual merits of what we are discussing and also by demonstrating that they do not have the slightest idea about the SUBSTANCE of the debate.If they would have at least addressed and rebutted the science behind RIFE and not just referred to the self serving statement that he was considered a QUACK by his peers it would have been of some relevence.
Firstly this statement, that RIFE was shunned by his peers is not only completely FALSE it is deliberately misleading. These commentators know or should know that the consensus from many different independent historical sources and accounts of his work was that his THEORY and his METHODOLOGY were confirmed in as scientifically VALID an experiment as possible according to the standards of the day in 1934 and that this was done at an accredited university in collaboration with some of the top doctors in the country. Many other doctors adopted his RIFE system until it was banned by the A.M.A. QUELLE SURPRISE !( NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN IT FOR THEM)
In fact it was so successful that the head of the A.M.A tried to buy into the company formed to exploit this technology. It is only when that failed that he and the A.M.A. banned this form of electrotherapy. THIS IS ALL A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD because the parties ended up in court and extracts of these facts are in the transcripts of that trial.
But you know what, I will not waste any more energy trying to convince these pundits because the nature of their debate is UNCIVILIZED, not academic, and is not worthy of being dignified by a response. Many people are now looking into this RIFE history and they will decide for themselves. Bringing this to everyone's attention was my main objective and I am even late to the battle because there are many, many others besides myself who are working on this.
This type of vindictive commentary from these two bloggers is not worthy of HIGH moral standards and objectives of the LORNE TROTTIER SYMPOSIUMS. That foundation has donated millions of dollars to further its stated mandate to stimulate intelligent debate and exchanges.Their comments are neither intelligent or well informed and are obviously not offered in a true interest of furthering knowledge...so they should get a life.
I have restrained myself until now from repliquing to this type of malicious, completely unfounded and uniformed commentary but now when they add a equally unsubstantiated and totally incorrect reference to merits of my MALINIAK METHOD for hair loss and male pattern baldness, they have crossed a line.
So for the benefits of everyone else reading these posts and NOT to respond to you two morons, which I now realize is beneath my dignity, I will state that my interest in RIFE has nothing to do with my THEORY and TREATMENT METHOD for hair loss. I came across RIFE when I was researching NIKOLA TESLA for my book and it is his science that both of these things are derived from.
By I guess that two geniuses like these two idiots, one of whom is even too cowardly to let us know who he is, probably also consider TESLA to be a QUACK.
That would be interesting considering that TESLA had hundreds of of the world's most important PATENTS to his credit, including the invention of the RADIO. The SUPREME COURT of the United States cancelled MARCONI'S patents and gave them to TESLA as the true inventor of radio. This is just ONE of the numerous contributions of this man who is only now being properly honored and acknowledged by the scientific community and the public. Have you heard of TESLA MOTORS?
Consequently, I am very comfortable in basing anything I do on something that TESLA developed. I only hope I can learn and understand even more about what he had to say because he was hundreds of years ahead of his time. If you two guys can actually READ try studying this properly before making comments about something you obviously know nothing about.
The same is true about your false and gratuitous comments about the MALINIAK METHOD. I never mentioned one word about this thing at the symposium or on my initial posts on this blog site because I had absolutely no intention of exploiting my interest in curing cancer and my advocacy for the further study of RIFE science as a pretext for promoting my commercial enterprise or my book. It was someone else who first mentioned it on this site.
But for your information, this MALINIAK METHOD has sold all over the world to the most SCEPTICAL AND CYNICAL group of people imaginable, including members of the world's most prestigeous forum on hair loss. Several DOCTORS are now using the method and almost everyone who joins our group writes to us and says they did so because it ALL MAKES SENSE.
Our results, which are remarkable and which have been posted on the website, along with testimonials from our initial test subjects, show that this theory which I came up with over one year ago is valid and the treatment method I proposed actually GROWS HAIR even on totally BALD HEADS. For the YOUNGER men the results have been even more dramatic...so these two guys can go take a flying...if I may sink to their level for a moment.
More importantly, if you look at the website again, you will see we have just added a reference to two(2) recently published independent scientific studies which now verify and confirm the validity of the two main underlying hypotheses of my theory.
Moreover, you are maliciously incorrect when you say there is some sort of "software" involved in this which is available on the Internet for free, a statement which is so bizarre and off the wall, and so deliberately misleading that I am wondering what drugs you guys are on.
As for your comments about the PROFIT motive, this is also FALSE. Myself and my partners went out of our way to NOT try to profit from the sale of the electrical stimulator which is part of the treatment in this MALINIAK METHOD and which has much more profit potential than just selling a book. We do not sell such a device ourselves nor do we get any consideration or commission from the three main suppliers that we recommend in the e-book. We did that specifically so people would not think that is all we wanted to do was sell a machine and so it would improve our credibility about the merits of the MALINIAK METHOD.
What LIARS you are. SHAME ON YOU.
In the words of our website, "if you are sceptical...do not buy the book" and in the words of one of my partners who has less tolerance than me for these type of people or their gratuitous and hostile comments....
" STAY BALD !"
People who are interested in that subject can decide for themselves instead of getting this false and deliberately misleading information from you by looking at the website and forming their own opinions instead of relying on your nonsense.
As for the veiled threats about investigations for fraud relating to hair loss systems perhaps these two geniuses should examine the history of the DRUG COMPANIES who since 1997 have released at least 26 drugs that I know about onto the market after seven years of the "peer reviewed", double blind studies, only to have these drugs removed from the market soon after release because they killed hundreds of thousands of people. LOOK IT UP !
Worse then that, a recent MEGA STUDY review of the scientific studies used to validate the benefits of these drugs showed that it was not disclosed that many of these studies were funded by drug companies with a conflict of interest in the results and that the research was OUTSOURCED to countries where the findings omitted to mention negative consequences and the testing was not properly supervised.
So who are the real QUACKS ?
We advocates of alternative sciences or the mainstream medical research community?
The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION has released statistics which state that cancer DEATHS are projected to INCREASE from 7.9 million per year in 2007 to 11.5 million per year in 2030.
SO WHO ARE THE REAL "QUACKS"
Doctors are not at fault, they would love to have more effective, less intrusive and less noxious treatments then the toxic chemotherapy, radiation and surgery which are the obsession of the current methodology.
By the way, the MALINIAK METHOD slogan is;
"NO DRUGS, NO LOTIONS, NO SURGERY".
Observation #1: While Royal Rife's experimental methodology may well have been accepted as valid back in 1934, wouldn't you think that by 2012, with all the scientific advances and modern technology available to us today, that his basic hypotheses or theories would have been validated by now if they had any merit?
Observation #2: After visiting the Born Again website, the ad copy does appear to have been very carefully worded to avoid promising any actual results from this method. And there IS also a prominent disclaimer present. Hmmm..
Observation #3: All the extraneous discussions about Tesla, cancer treatments, big pharma, etc, etc really have nothing to do with the topic at hand.. which is curing male pattern baldness. Red herrings, anyone?
Observation #4: Also true that the FTC has handed out some rather large fines for false/misleading medical claims regarding fake "cures" for baldness. This sounds more factual than "threatening", to me anyways.
Observation #5: Clinical double blind studies don't purport to predict possible adverse reactions or negative outcomes from widespread distribution of the pharmaceuticals being tested. The samples simply aren't large enough to predict such outcomes in large populations. Nevertheless, they are still universally accepted by the scientific community as the only reliable indicator of whether or not a drug or treatment will show the desired effect. (Unsubstantiated testimonials & hearsay on the other hand, are not.)
Observation #6: Haranguing and maligning any and all disbelieving commentators and detractors as being "liars" and "idiots" doesn't actually prove them wrong, nor prove you right, Mr Maliniak. In any case, they're still entitled to express their viewpoints.
Observation #7: Nobody is earning money or commissions from all this hokey-pokey. It's a purely humanitarian effort. LOL
Well, that's my two cents worth anyways. I'm not a doctor, a chemist, or even a lawyer. Perhaps someone more adept at debunking medical/scientific quackery can give us a better perspective on this topic.
I somehow can't help but wonder what the honorable Joe Schwartz might have to say regarding Mr Rife's "controversial" theories, and Mr Maliniak's "hair raising " claims??
Oops! Regarding Born Again Hair, the disclaimer seems to be absent from the new version of the site. Sorry, my bad..
I'm curious though. Wouldn't operating without the required disclaimer put you at risk of incurring a substantial fine should you become the object of investigation by the FTC.. or is there some legal "loophole"? Does the FTC perhaps lack jurisdiction over sites hosted outside of the US?