Royal Rife - The Cancer Cure That Worked (Barry Lynes, 1987)_1

7/22/2019 Royal Rife - The Cancer Cure That Worked (Barry Lynes, 1987)_1

1/177

last you can read THE RIFE REPORT

Written byBARRY LYNES


2/177

Copyr ight Barry Lynes 1987All rights reserved. Th e use of any part of this

publication reproduced transmitted in a ny form or byany means electronic mechanical photocopyingrecording or otherwise or stored in a retrie val systemwithout the prio r written consent of th e publisher is aninfringement of the copyright law.First printing March 1987Second printing January 1989Third printing August 1989Fourth printing April 1992Fifth printing August 994Sixth printing October 997

Published in Canada by Marcus BooksP.O.Box 327 Queensville OntarioCanada LOG 1RO. 9053 hp sFax 905) 478-8338Cover designed by Doris Diehl

ISBN 0-9 1995 1-30-9


3/177

The health of the people is really the foundation upon whichall their happiness and all their powers as a State depend

Benjamin Disraeli

Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hidShakespeare


4/177


5/177

ONTENTSThe People Who Made This ookForewordAuthor's warning

chapter'l> The Cure for CancerChapter2: Bacteria and VirusChapter 3: Medicine in AmericaChapter 4: The Man Who Found the Cure for CancerChapter 5: The 920sChapter 6: The Early 1930sChapter 7: "BX" The Virus of CancerChapter 8: Forward Motion: 1933-1934Chapter 9: The Cancer Cure WorksChapter 10: 1935: Climbing A MountainChapter 1936: "Astounding" Clinic ResultsChapter 12: 1937: Money Woes and DelaysChapter 13: 1938: Beam RayChapter 14: 1939: The Storm BreaksChapter 15: The Microscope and the Freq. InstrumentChapter 16: '46-'86: Rife's Theory Gains AcceptanceChapter 17: The VictimsChapter 18: Clarifications and ExplanationsChapter 1 : How the Legal System Was Corrupted to

Suppress Rife's Cancer CureSelected BibliographyAppendicesBeware of Exploiters


6/177


7/177

The People Who Made This ookRoyal R . Rife bo rn in 1888, was one o f th e greatest scie n-

tific geniuses of the 2 0th century. He began researching a c u r efor cancer in 1920, and by 1932 he had isolated the c an c ervirus. He learned ho w to destroy it in laboratory cultures a n dwent on to cure canc er in animals. In 1934, h e opened a c li n icwhich successfully cured 16 of 16 cases within three m o n th stime. Working with some of the most respected researchers inAmerica along with leading doctors from Southern California,he electronically destroyed the cancer virus in patients, allow-ing their own imm une systems to restore health. Sp ec ia lResearch Com mittee of the University of Southern Californ iaoversaw the laboratory research and the experimental treat-ments until the end of the 1930s. Follow-up clinics conductedin 1935, 1936 and 1937 by the head of th e U.S.C. Med icalComm ittee verified the results of the 1934 clinic. Indepen dentphysicians utilizing the equipment successfully treated smany as 40 people per day during these ye ars . In addition t ocuring cancer and o ther deadly diseases, degenerative co nd i-tions such as cataracts were reversed. Ri fe had been able t odetermine the precise electrical frequency which desti-oyedindividual micro-organisms responsible for cancer, herpes,tuberculosis, and oth er illnesses. His work w as described i ncirtzce magazine, medical journals, and later the SmithsonianInstitution s annual report.Unfortunately, Ri fe s scientific theo ries and method oftreatment conflicted with orthodox view s. His work w a sstopped and both the research and the treatments were forcedunderground. Doctors secretly continued curing cancerpatients for 22 years after the original success of the 1934


8/177

clinic, but always with opposition from medical and g o v -ernmental authorities. However, from 1950 to the mid- 1 9 8 0 s ,a number of research scientists, working independently, h a v eslowly been verifying the scientific principles upon w h i c hRife s clinical cu re s of the 1930 s were based. body o frecognized scientific evidence now overwhelmingly supportsthe original cancer theories articulated and demonstrated b yRife 50 years ago. This includes modem AIDS researchers.In the 1950s, Jo hn Crane-engineer, machinist, labor atoryanalyst, health researcher and inventor-became Rife s p a r t -ner. Crane, born in 1915, worked at Rife s side from 1 9 5 0until Rife s d eath in 1971. During this time, he learned all t h esecrets of Rife s cancer cure an d all the details of it ssuppression. Together, the two men designed and constructednew and better equipment, and managed to interest a n e wgeneration of doctors in the possibilities of a genuine, lastingand painless cancer cure. And again the authorities struck.Crane was jailed, equipment was sm ashed , records w e r edestroyed. Again the m otives driving on the forces of s up pr es -sion were the sam e. By sharing the long hidden facts, as w e l las thousands of documents preserved from the 1930s, C r a n ehas enabled the full story to be told.Author Barry Lynes born in 1942, is an investigative re-porter who lives in California. His areas of research, articlesand books include economic theory, climate changes, hi st or y,U.S.-Soviet re lations and altern ative hea lth treatments. Inearly 1 986, he becam e acquainted with John Crane and h e a r dthe lentire Rife story first-hand. Initially skeptical, L y n e schanged his mind after examining the wealth of documenrs inCrane s possession. Outraged by th e injustices that had d e -stroyed Rife s wo rk , Lynes decided to reveal in book ormwhat had happened.You hold the result in your hands.


9/177

oreword

Quantum theory has shown the impossibility of separatingthe observer from the observed. Proponents of the classicalscientific method find this a bitter pill an d little or no th in ghas been done in a practical way to apply this phenomenon inthe everyday practice of science.This state of affairs is perhaps not surprising. The practiceof science continues to be plagued by an oversimplified m o d e lof human sight-perception. Much scientific controversy swell as ongoing prejudice against new discoveries can b etraced to the false assumption that sight follow s some u n i f o mlaw of nature. In fact diversity is the natural law of h u m a nsight an example of diversity within species. This law c a n n o tbe changed. However it can be understood an d its prop ertiesdefined with sufficient clarity and emphasis to vastly improveboth the interpretation of perceptions and the exercise of et h i-cal practices in scientific research.From individual to individu al all of the fiv e sense s are quantitatively unequal. For example some of us cannot see w it ho uteye glasses or hear without a hearing aid tas te subtle flav orssmell a rose or feel fine textures. Further th e qu lig of t h esenses varies with the nature of acquired knowledge or experi-ence of the individual. Relatively sight contributes more t h a nany of the other senses to our awareness of the world o u rbeing our consciousness. The eye-mind circ uit is itself a va ri-able. psychologist studying brain-damaged individ ualsfound a man who thought his wife was a hat. Are there sub-clinical cases of this phenomenon among us even scientists?Strang ely this capricious sense is so much part of most ofus we pay it little heed . Who among us can s ay with cert ain ty


10/177

they have not played the role of the native in the followingscript from Magellan's logbook.When Magellan's expeditions first landed at Terra delFuego, the Fuegans, who for centuries had bee n isolated w i t htheir canoe culture, were unable to see the ships anchored inthe bay. The big ships were so far beyond their experiencethat, despite their bulk, the horizon continued unbroken: T h eships were invisible. This was learned on later expeditions tothe area when the Fuegans described how, according to o n eaccount, the shaman had first brought to the villagers' atten-tion that the strangers had arrived in something which althou ghpreposterous beyond belief, could actually be seen if onelooked carefully. We ask how could the y not see t h eships they w ere so obvious, so re l yet others w o u ldask how we cannot see things just as obviou s.Nowhere is the frailty of sight-perception so troublesomeas in microscopy. Recently, a medical writer stated that 1years ago the microscope was a mysterious instrument. Nodoubt it was at that time, but today it is an eve n more my ste ri-ous instrument. Tools and techniques of essentially infinitevariety have evolved to extend huma n vision enormously, b u twith inherent complexities. The microscope itself contains thevariables of lens configuration, magnification, resolution ndlighting. Thousands of stains and staining techniques, ev ol ve dover many years, have contributed heavily to complexifyingthe rt of microscopy. While microscopists acknowledge t h e s einherent variables, in uncharted waters they remain ext rem elytroublesome.But the microscope does more than sim ply magnify s m a l lobjects to visible size , it transports the mind 's eye into a w o r l dof incredible complexity of form, flux and process, es pec iallywhen the specimen is alive or was once alive. The s p a c etraveler has access to better means of orientation than does t h emicrobiologist.Thus, the microscope is at once a marvelous tool an d areservoir of seemingly endless confusion eve n without in t r o -ducing the factor of variations in human sight-perception. N odoubt, we should stand in awe of progress made. But w ecannot longer thus stand. Old health problem s have b e c o m e


11/177

more serious, and new ones appear almost daily. RoyalRaymond Rife's sto ry contains crucial information to b ebrought into focus through correlations with both old and newknowledge.A num ber of eve nts in the history of microsc opy and micro-biology lend credence to Rife's discoveries and insights intothe nature of his travails.Circa 1870, Antoine Bechamp saw tiny mo tile bodies w it hhis microscop e whic h he named microzym as. In the fi rs tthird of the 20th century Gunther Enderlein saw these bodiesand called them endobionts. Wilhelm R ei ch , in the la te1930s, saw a similar if not identical body which he namedbion. There were others during this era. T od ay in Swe denand in Canada the properties of these sam e livin g particles a r ebeing explored by researchers who have assign ed names fr o mtheir own imaginations. The various theories advanced b ymembers of this group of researchers remain rejected rlargely forgotten. Remarkably, they all used dark-field con-densers a known bu t uncommon prac tice. In microbiology tis particularly difficult to convince others o f the truth a n dvalue of discoveries made with uncommon methods of obser-vation.Rife employed a system of lighting as unknown to micro-scopy today as it was in the 1930s. It was not simply uncom-mon it was unknown. This was the first and m os t fundamentaltechnical strike again st understanding Rife's microscope a n dbiological discoveries. Fear of the unknown is greater thanfear of the unfamiliar. Even scientists are not immune to thishuman instinct.There were a few who were not distracted by Rife'sunknown method of lighting. Having a look at his work, theyjumped to the next problem, that of their own dogma, whichsaid it is simply impossible to realize such high magnificationsand resolutions with a light microscope, and therefore we d onot believe what we see. You, M r. Rife, are dishonest, a n dfor trying to pull the wool over our eyes we will put trouble-some clouds in your skies to the end of your da ys. Dogma i snecessary. but it often lives too long, and is too often exercisedunwisely.


12/177

Only recently have discoveries been confirmed inbiophysics to make it possible to understand the principle bywhich Rife's microscopes produced magnifications and resol-utions so far beyond the limits of conventional light micro-scopes. Remarkably, the basic phenomena behind these newdiscoveries were described by Gustav e Bon, psychologistturned physicist, just before the turn of the Century. Then asnow, gifted individuals who cross disciplinary boundaries arenot heard.

P Biophysicists have now shown that there exists a crucialnatural interaction between living matter and photons. T h i sprocess is measurable at the cellular (bacterium) level. Ot h e rresearch has demonstrated that living systems are extraordinar-ily sensitive to extremely low-energy electromagnetic waves.This is to say, each kind of cell or microorganism has a spe-cific frequency of interaction with the electromagnetic sp ec-trum. By various means, Rife's system allowed adjusting thefrequency of light impinging on the specimen. By some insighthe learned that the light frequency could be tuned into thenatural frequency of the microorganism being examined tocause a resonance or feed-back loop. In effect, under th iscondition, it can be said the microorganism illuminated itself.

Is it possible the newly discovered electromagnetic proper-ties of living matter were visible to certain highly sk illedmicroscopists with nothing more special than a gifted se nse ofsight? In self defense, Wilhelm Reich, who could see with hismicroscope what others could not, said a good microscopistmust learn to resonate with the specimen. Barbara McClin-tock, Nobel Prize winning corn geneticist, who experiencedyears of travail because she could see the un-seeable,explained that she had a feeling for the organism . Perh apsRife had such a gift of sight or insight as these two, b u t heapplied it to building a device he hoped would make t possiblefor all to see further into the mysteries of living things. Hisdevice worked, but the world remained blind to these rnys-teries.Rife extrapolated from his lighting technique, which wemay e certain he understood, that specific electromagneticfrequencies would have a negative effect on specific bacterial


13/177

forms. There can remain no doubt that Rife demonstrated thecorrectness of his hypothesis to himself and those few whohad the courage to look and the perceptual acuity to see Thesame new discoveries in biophysics not only explain Rife sprinciple of illumination, they also explain his process for*selective destruction of bacteria. The latter phenomenon ssimilar to ultra-sonic cleaning, differing in delicate selectivityof wave form and frequency. Recently, researchers whosefindings have been suppressed, have caused and cured cancerin the same group of mice by subjecting them to certain elec-tromagnetic fields. Rife s work was far more sophisticated.He selected specific microscopic targets, and actually saw thetargets explode.

Rife s works demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt thatbacteria are pleomorphic rather than monomorphic. Thisdemonstration did more to bring down upon him the wrath o fthe worst kind of politics of science than any other facet o fhis work. It violated the strongest of established biologicaldogmas, that of the germ theory of disease specific etiol-ogy. Everyone knew this-that-and-the-other disease wascaused by a characteristic germ. This had been absolutelyproven by Koch s postulates and the success of vaccinations.

No one remembered Antoine Bechamp s microzyma theorywhich said that various conditions of disease evoke the appear-ance of characteristic bacterial forms from tiny living pre-bacterial particles which he found in all living systems, ndin inert organic matter which had once been alive. Thisrequired that bacteria e pleomorphic, a fact he extensivelydemonstrated, but not to the satisfaction of those who ran t hepolitics of science during the late 1800s. In Bechamp s theory,bacteria are a symptom rather than the final cause of disease.Today s biologists find these concepts incomprehensible eventhough both bacterial pleomorphism and endogenous sourcesof bacteria have been demonstrated repeatedly sinceBechamp s time. Perhaps the continuing failure to control bothald and new diseases will pressure medical science into realiz-ing that the traditional germ theory dogma is at best incom-plete.During the late 1800s the future course of medical bacteriol-


14/177

ogy was set largely by expediency. The scientists had someanswers concerning infectious diseases, and it made g oodpolitical and commercial sense to put these answers into pr ac-tice. Bechamp's ideas were not only strange and distasteful,they were complicated. In fact, Bechamp's theory probablyrelates more to degenerative diseases than to infectious dis -eases, the latter being of greater concern in that era.

Vaccinations worked, though their real efficacy and long-term effects are now being questioned. The germ theory i ts el fwas relatively obvious, and it was easy to convince the publi cthat the cause of their ills was a thing which though invisible,came from outside the body. This gave the individual a di s-tance from the cause . Though small, this distance was corn-forting in an era when the nature of disease was so mysterious.The germ theory was embraced with a great sigh of relief ; itwas ever so much better than nothing. Try as they might, Ri f eand his highly competent affiliates could not change the co lo rof this dogma.

Today, the fact of bacterial pleomorphism is recognizedquietly by small groups of microbiologists who acknowledgenot knowing for certain what to do about it. The fact s tandswithout theory, together with other self-evident biologicalphenomena such as evolution and symbiosis. The processesof pleomorphism appear complex beyond comprehension. Itis a process rather than a thing. Understanding this proce sshas been hampered by the fact that microbiologists have rarelylooked at living specimens. Preoccupied with stains and s tain-ing techniques, and entranced by the electron microscope, theyhave continued to look at killed specimens. There is l it tledoubt that Rife's live-specimen microscopy confused his cr i-tics, adding strength to their antagonism, and to their convic-tion they had not witnessed bacterial pleomorphism.

Understanding bacterial pleomorphism in a practical w a y isnecessary to unraveling the mysteries of the immune sy stemand degenerative diseases. If one steps outside traditionalmicrobiology, and can somehow insulate oneself from all thecontroversy and tragic-ridden hindsight, perhaps new light canbe brought to the subject. Pleomorphism means simply, theassumption of various distinct forms by a single organism or


15/177

species; also the property of crystallizing in two or moreforms . (Dorland's Illustrated Me dical Dictionary.): or: 1.Bot. the occurrence of two or more forms in one life cycle.2. Zool. same as polymorphism (Webster).In both the long run and the short run, life is pleomorphic.What do we mean by the long run? There is now convincingevidence that life existed on Earth at least 3 400 million yearsago. If life itself on Earth were extinguished today, it wouldhave ex perienced an enormously long life cycle during whichit changed from isolated single cells into an infinite variety ofcomplex living forms. In this sense of the infinity of life, lifeis pleomorphic. We experience the short run, the periodicforms of living things which collectively perpetuate the infin-ity of the whole of life itself. The periodic f orm s we commonlyperceive-plants, anim als, birds , bees-are obviously pleo-morphic in the short run, i.e., minutes, hours, days,weeks, months, years, decades, centuries.All sexually reproducing life forms begin as a group ofidentical cells which differentiate into specialized cells whichby symbiotic associations create complex living forms such asthe human animal. Between fertile egg and birth, the embryohas many forms. The mature animal is a form of forms.Even the human intellect may be said to be pleomorphic.Education and exp erienc e chan ge its form, if you will allowthis concept. In the English language there is the word tautol-ogy, m eaning: needless repetition of an idea in a differentword, phrase or sentence, redundancy; pleonasm. In themeaning of this word is there not evidence of an instinctiveneed to somehow change formPleomorphism is a self-evident-facts-without-theory prop-erty of living sy stems of the same class a s, for example, sym-biosis and evolution. Bacteria are living things. They cannotbe other than pleomorphic, symbiotic and evolutionary.Only during the past few years has an interest in live-speci-men microscopy emerged toge ther with an assortment ofimproved light microscopes. Th ese new scopes employinnovative light-paths alone or together with ultraviolet ornear-ultraviolet light sources. Ultraviolet light has a strongnegative effect on practically all bacteria. In desperation, this


16/177

compromise is perhaps being too eagerly accepted. Many o fthe new scopes employ image-enhancement by computer, atechnique which may or may not encourage agreement inmicrobiological perceptions. It may introduce greater complexities than has staining. The bottom line , of course, is t h a tmicrobiologists must create a whole living-specimen -paradigmwithin which they can get their heads together. An enormouslearning period looms ahead, complicated by tools of e v e rincreasing intricacy.In retrospect, Rife's microscope appears relatively si m p l eand straightforward, ideally suited for observing living s p e c i -mens. None of the new light scopes can begin to approach t h emagnification and resolution achieved by Rife. Only o n e , alittle-known instrument developed in France during the 1 9 6 0 s ,approximates that of Rife. Today , th is microscope is b e i n goperated at 45 magnifications with an unbelievable 15angstrom resolution. It ppe rs to b e an ordinary high-qualityresearch instrument fitted with a dark-field condenser and alight source comprised of a mix of near-ultraviolet and l a s e r ,both being of an undisclosed frequency. Its principle of o p e r -ation may approximate Rife's in a limited way.A personal note: With my ow n eyes and with my o w nresearch-grade microscope, fitted with a dark-field co nd en se r,I have seen a bacterial pleomorphic proce ss in fresh un tr ea te dspecimens of hum an blood. I could not have seen th is if Ihad not known what to look for. I knew what to lo o k forbecause I had studied Becham p, R ife , Re ich and others, ndbecause of the personal tutorage of a gifted microscopist w h ohad studied the phenomenon for over twenty-five years.Barry Lynes makes a strong case for replicating R i f e ' sworks, his microscope, and especially the electromagnetic fre-quency generator that Rife's associates used successfully inthe clinical treatment of cancer. Th is would be highly d e s i r a -ble. Rife's works should, by all means, be reexamined f irlyin light of new knowledge. Th is new knowledge hasdefined, but not answered, many questions. The products ofRife's gentle gen ius were premature, and they may well c o n -tain crucial clues o r whole answers.John W. MattinglyColorado State University


17/177

THECANCERCURETHATWORKED


18/177

AUTHOR S W ARNING

Important. Throughout this book bacteria and virusesmay seem to be confused. Part of the difficulty is based o n t h esimple fact that in 1990s scien tific language, viruses rebasically defined as extraordinarily sm all m icrobes consisti ngof DNA or RNA (the genecarrying nucleic acids) surround edby a coat of protein, and requring a living cell to reproduce.Bacteria are much larger, living microbes consisting of a s in g lecell which reproduces hrough division.In the 193 0s, bacteria which passed through tiny fi lt e rswere called "filterable viruses." Later th e term filterable wasdropped. The "filterable bacteria" which Ri fe identified s acause of cancer an d which he late r called a virus remains in the199 s an essentiaIIy unexamined area ofscienceIf this is still confusing, read c ha pte r 8 keep i ngin mind that most of this book was written hurriedly in O c t o b e r1986 in just three weeks, and remarkably published quicklyand heroically in April 1987 by a cou rageous pu blis he r.Mainstream American pub lishers were still afraid to touch t h e

"Rife topic" in 1996 Also keep in mind that it is "e ne rg ymedicine" or "resonance healing" that is curing many diseaseconditions, including cancer, jus t 10 year s after this b oo k' soriginal publication, n 1997. Th e techno logy and disco verie sare exploding as I write this, despite an old guard medical,scientific and government elite that are working furiously tokeep the new healing instruments away from the public a n dbeyond any medialpublic debate.


19/177

Chapter 1he ure For ancer

In the summ er of 1934 in California, und er the auspices othe University of Southern California, a grou p of le ad in gAmerican bacteriologists and doctors conducted the first suc-cessful cancer clinic. The rcaused-tly- a rnicro-organism, that the micro-organism c o u l dbe painlessly destroyed in terminally ill cancer patients, ndthat the effects of the disease could be reversed.The technical discovery leading to the can cer cure had b e e ndescribed in cience magazine in 1931. In th e decade fo llow -ing the 1934 cTinical success, the tech nolog y and the s u b -sequent, successful treatment of cancer patients was discussedat medical conferen ces, disseminated in a medical jo ur na l,cautiously but professionally reported in a major newspaper,and technically explained in an annual report published by t h eSmithsonian Institution.How ever, the cancer cure threatened a num ber of scien tists,physicians, and financial interests. A cover-up was initiated.Physicians using the new technology were coerced into aban-doning it. The author of the Smithsonian article was followedand then was shot at while driving his car. He never w r o t eabout the subject aga in. All reports describing the cure w e r ecensor ed by the head of the .AM-A (A me rican M edical A ss o ci -ation) from the major medlcal journals. Objective scientificevaluation by government laboratories was prevented. A n drenowned researchers who supported the technology and i t snew scientific principles in bacteriology were scorned,ridiculed, and called liars to their face. Eventually, a l o n g ,dark silence lasting decades fell over the canc er cure. In t i m e ,the cure was labeled a myth -it never happ ened. H ow ev er ,documents now available prove that the cure did exist, w s


20/177

tested successfully in clinical trials, and in fact was used secretly for years afterwards-continuing to cur e cancer as w e l las other diseases.Yet, despite the blackout which prevented doctors a n dresearchers from knowing about and improving the cure, ot h e rscientific investigators continued to verify th e basic princip les.In the late 1940s and early 1950s, cooperating researchers a ta hospital laboratory in New Jersey and a research institute inPennsylvania made similar discoveries which unknowinglyaligned them with the California group of a decad e earlier. I n1950, these researchers prepared to make a presentation b e fo rethe New York Academy of Sciences. But again, politicalforces intervened and the sympo sium was cance lled.Then, in 1953, the basic science which validated ththeories of the California group was explained by the N e wJersey group at an international microbiology conference inRome, Italy. The New York Times and the Washington P o s treported the discovery.However, upon the group s return to Am erica, they d i s -covered that the same powerful forces which had preventedan American announcement in 1950 had secretly managed toterminate the financing of the New Jersey laboratory. T h eleading researcher was forced to m ove to California and st a r tanew.In December of that same year, the le ade r of the Califo rniagroup and the man most responsible for the successful he al in gof cancer in the 1930s-after years of silence-pub lished adescription of the methods and results of the cancer cure. T h eauthorities at the government s National C ancer Institute inWashington, D.C. received a copy at the National Library ofMedicine outside Washington, D.C. in Bethesda, Maryland.But they ignored it. The library staff responsible for filing andcirculating such reports to the officials determining cancerresearch policy either failed to do their jobs or they met w it hopposition from those in charge of the war on cancer.Still, new researchers continued to appear on the scene.The process of rediscovering what the California group hadfound continued. In the late 1950s, an international con feren cewas held in Europe. The topic was the same topic which the


21/177


22/177

In 1986, an authority in the field summarized the currentsituation as follows: Only in the past 2-4 years have micro-biologists developed the slightest interest in living micro-organisms. When they start truly looking at living micro-organisms, the process of change taking place before theireyes will confound the problem. We are going to have to teachthem what they are seeing. It's a totally different world t hanwhat they think they know.

n the past year, a leading scientist from Europe hasreexamined the work and the claims of the California groupwhich cured cancer in the 1930s. He concluded, The pr inci-ple is sound.What follows is a complex tale of scientific brilliance anddetermination by a number of researchers. Sadly, it is al s o atale of scientific ignorance, deception, abuse of power, andcriminal acts. Congress, the media, and the scientific co mmu-nity should begin public investigations of these matters i thepublic trust is not to be further eroded.

More than 1,200 Americans will die from cancer i n thenext 24 hours-nearly one death every minute.Surely it is time for the suffering to stop.


23/177

Chapter 2Bacteria and Virus

In 19th century France, two giants of science collided. Oneof them is now world-renowned-Louis Paste ur. The other,from whom Pasteur stole many of his best ideas, is now essen-tially forgotten-Pierre Bechamp. H owever, it is possible tha tas medical knowledge advances an d the relationships betweenhealth, the imm une system, and food patterns a re better under-stood, B echamp may come to be recognized a s the more sig-nificant of the two men.

E. Douglas Hume, author of Bechamp or Pasteur assertsthat it was Pasteur's faulty science, combined with his publicstanding, which set the direction of 20th century medicine-chemicals, injections, and experimental transfers of diseasecultures from one species to another. According to Hume,medicine could have proceeded in a very different direction ifBechamp's research had received the public attention itdeserved. It is now widely recognized that Pasteur was wrongon a number of basic issues.One of the many areas in which Pasteur and Becharnpargued concerned what is today know n as pieomorphism-theoccurrence of more than one distinct form of an organism ina single life cycle. Bechamp contended that bacteria couldchange forms. rod-shaped bacteria could become aspheroid, etc. Pasteur disagreed. In 1914 Madame VictorHenri of the Pasteur Institute confirmed that Bechamp wascorrect and Pasteur wrong.But Bechamp went much further in his argument forpleomorp hism. He contended that bacteria cou ld devolveinto smaller, unseen forms, what he called microzymia. Inother wo rds, Bechamp developed-on the basis of a lifetime


24/177

of research-a theory that micro-organisms could change th e iressential siz as well as their shape, depending on the state ofhealth of the organism in which the micro-organism lived.This directly contradicted what orthodox medical authoritieshave believed for most of the 20th century. Laboratoryresearch in recent years has provided confirmation forBechamp's notion. An entire century of medicine and sc ien-tific research might have been different if Pasteur's publicauthority and the commercial gains to be realized from hisfaulty ideas had not predominated.In 1980, French bacteriologists Sorin Sonea and Maur icePanisset published A New Bacteriology. The central theme oftheir book was that bacterial pleomorphism was now a sc ien-tific fact. They stated that different types of bacteria wereonly different manifestations of a unified bacteria world.This seemingly esoteric scientific squabble had ramifica-tions far beyond academic institutions. The denial ofpleomorphism was one of the cornerstones of 20th centurymedical research and cancer treatment. An early 20th centuryacceptance of pleomorphism might have prevented millions ofAmericans from suffering and dying of cancer.In the early third of this century, a heated debate took placeover filtrable bacteria versus non-filtrable bacteria. Theorthodox view was that bacteria could not be filtered to asmaller form. What passed through bacteria-proof' fil te rswas something else: not bacteria, but viruses. Standardtextbooks today continue to make this same basic distinctionbetween bacteria and viruses.A typical bacteria is about 1 micron in size, or 1125,000of an inch. Viruses range in size from 10 millimicrons (10thousandths of a micron) to 300 millimicrons 300 thousandthsof a micron). Thus, the largest virus, according to the orthodoxview, is a quarter to a third the size of the average bacteria.This measurement is important because 300 millimicronsalso is the limit of resolution of the light microscope. Vi rusesrequire an electron microscope to be seen and electron micro-scopes kill the specimens. Only the very large smallpox viruscan be seen with a light microscope.


25/177

Since viruses passed through pores in a filter which heldback anything larger than 300 millimicrons, viruses weretermed filtrable viruses at one time. But even tually the te rm sfiltrable and viruses became synonym ous. A virus w a sfiltrable. But bacteria, according to the orthodox view, couldnot be filtered to a smaller, earlier stage. H ere loomed a ma jorbattle in the war over pleomorphism.Another criterion for a virus is that it requires a living cellas a host in order to reproduce. This fundamental distinctionbetween bacteria and viruses was announced by Dr. ThomasRivers of the Rockefeller Institute to the Society of AmericanBacteriologists in December 1926 It helped to establish th efoundation for his career as well as to distinguish virology asa separate specialty within the broader field of microbiology.In time, Rivers-becaus e of his scientific reputa tion, his qu ar -relsome personality, and the immense financial resources this disposal through the Rockefeller Institute-became one ofthe most formidable men in American microbiology. A sDirector of the Rockefeller Hospital from 19 37 to 1955, a n das Vice-President of the R ockefeller Institute from 1953 un tilillness and death removed him from a power role in Americanmedicine, not only did his ideas influence the leading virusresearchers of the next generation, but his personal training ofa dozen or more of them had a profound impact on researchpriorities well into the 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, D r .Thomas Rivers was wrong about filtrable bacteria.A quotation from an article by Dr. Richard Shope whichappeared in The Journal of Bacteriology in 962 after t h edeath of Rivers provides some insight into what anyone dis-agreeing with Rivers would face: Many of those who h a v eknown Dr. Rivers best have felt the sting that he could sopicturesquely deliver in an argument. Few of us have had t h enerve openly to side with his opposition in one of these 'knockdown' and 'drag out' discussions.But one man who did challenge Rivers was Dr. ArthurKendall (1877-1959), a noted bacteriologist of his time. Ke n-dall was thoroughly defeated by Rivers as fa r a s public ac cla imand orthodox peer recognition was conce rne d, but just as w it h


26/177

Becharnp in the earlier battle with Pasteur, the science of latergenerations appears to be reassessing where the true honorsshould be assigned.Dr. Arthur Kendall was Director of the Hygienic Labora-

tory of the Panama Canal Commission in 1904.The HygienicLaboratory was the forerunner of the National Institute ofHealth. In 1906, Kendall became a bacteriologist at theRockefeller Institute. This was followed by years as aninstructor at Harvard University Medical School 1909- 9 2).In 1912, Kendall became head of the first wholly independentDepartment of Bacteriology in America, at Northwestern Uni-versity. In 1916, he was appointed Dean of the MedicalSchool. In 1924, Kendall became Professor of Bacteriologyand public health at Washington University in St. Louis, Mis-souri. Then in 1928, he returned to Northwestern and shortlyafterwards began working with the California group wh ichconducted the first successful cancer clinic in 1934. In 1942he retired from Northwestern. More than 100 of his paperswere published.

On December 1 1 1931 Science magazine reported in itsScience News section that Dr. Kendall had filtered bacteria toa smaller form and that these micro-organisms had remainedalive on a medium of his creation. His "K Medium7'had bro-ken down the typhoid bacillus into a filtrable form. Moreover,using a special microscope, he was able to see: 1) the fullsized bacillus still unchanged, 2) other bacilli n an inter-mediate stage between the filtrable and the non-filtrablephases, and 3) still other, very small turquoise-blue bodieswhich were the final bacillus form. This final form was thesize of a virus, and yet it was still a bacteria The basis forDr. Rivers' authority had been challenged.

When the official publication of the California Medica lAssociation, California and Wes tern Medicine published theincredible news in December 1931, and Dr. Kendall wasinvited to address the Association of American Physicians,Rivers reacted. First he tried to have Kendall's talk cancelled.When that was refused by the sponsors, he insisted that he andDr. Hans Zinsser of Harvard be allowed to speak also. AfterKendall made his presentation before the Association in M a y


27/177

1932 , Zinsser and Rivers publicly ripped Ken dall apart, statingthat since they could not replicate Kendall's results, Kendallwas lying. The opposition mounted by Rivers and Zinsser wassuch that few scientists and doctors of the time dared to sup-port Kendall. Kendall could not conv ince the orthodox non-filtration school that experiments done according to h istechniques would validate his discovery. The opposition groupdid not want to learn.In 1974, Lida H. Mattman of the Department of Biology,Wayne State University, published Cell Wa ll DeBcient Forms.By then, pleomorphism was a proven phenomenon althoughthe orthodox school continued to ignore it. Mattman wrote,Current bacteriology holds the belief that each species ofbacteria has only a certain very sim ple form. In contrast,this writer, using carefully prepared pure cultures, found thatbacteria pass through stages with markedly different morphol-ogy.Citing studies that went back mo re than 30 yea rs, Mattmanopened the door to a modem field of research which the exist-ing cancer authorities had not only ignored, but dismissed o rsuppressed because it conflicted with their own beliefs andtheir own self-interest.Mattman, writing with scholarly conservatism, recognizedKendall's contribution and obliquely the erroneous attack o nhim in the early 1930s: In the 192 0s an important 'school o ffiltration' was established by Ken dall. Although Willia mH. Welch regarded Kendall's work as a distinct advance, gre atskepticism was expressed on the whole. Unfortunately, thiswas just prior to the demonstration by K leineberger and b yDienes that filtrable organisms could be grown on solidmedium and their sequential reversion steps followed.Both Kleineberger and Dienes published their initial find-ings in the mid-1930s. K endall was only a few years ahead o fthem. But Kleineberger and Dienes had no effect either.Something more fundamental was operating, as time woulddemonstrate. Kendall had not only challenged the experienceof Rivers and other established authorities, but had unknow-ingly threatened medical and financial interests.By 1982, when Gerald J . Donigue of Tulane University


28/177

School of Medicine published Cell-Wall Deficient Bacteriathe suppression of Kendall's work for 5 years had obviousresults. Domingue writes:' There is a considerable body of experimental and c lin ic alevidence-much of which has never been published-support-ing the concept that cell wall deficient bacteria may be agentsof disease. There are no current books whose primar yfocus is on the clinical significance of these unusualbodies. The most neglected research area has been on t h erole of these organisms in disease.

Thus, 50 years after Kendall's d iscovery, even with su b-stantial evidence, the erroneous orthodox view continued todominate medical theory, cancer research, and cancer treat-ment.One of Kendall's renowned supporters was Dr. EdwardRosenow of the Mayo Clinic. Rosenow w as viciously at ta ck edby Thomas Riv ers of the rival Rockefeller Institute. A sreported in the 197 6 article in New Age Journal, R o s e n o w ' sson, Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, Jr., Chief AdministrativeOfficer of the American Co llege of Physicians, asserts th athis father was all but accused by Rockefeller Institute researchmoguls of experimental dishonesty.Rosenow told his son, They si mp ly won't li st en .(Rosenow's s on later told how , while a student of Zi n ss er 'sat Harvard, Zinsser had admitted to Ro seno w Jr. that he, Z i n s -ser, had not eve n used Rosenow Sr. 's medium in fai li n g toduplicate and then condemning Rosenow's test results.)The m edical moguls apparently w ould n't listen even t o n eof their own. In 19 11, Peyton Rous of the Rockefeller In st it ut eprovided the first evidence that a virus co uld cause a ca n c er .Yet for decades the orthodox view was that cancer resultedfrom somatic mutation -a gene deve lops a flaw and d i s o r -ganizes cellular function.David Locke, author of a book on viruses published in1974, recalled meeting Peyton Rous in the corridors of theRockefeller Institute during the mid-century and b e i n gshocked to learn that a micro-organism could be the ca u s e ofcancer. Locke wrote, The 194 0s and 19 50 s were the h e y d a yof the somatic mutation theory. At the time, t was scientific


29/177

dogma that cancer was a peculiar transformation of cellscaused not by an infectious agent, but by a mutation of thecells.Peyton Rous was finally honored for his discovery in 19 66when he received the Nobel Prize. He was 86 years old andhis discovery 55 years past.Because the Rous virus has been around for so long, it ha sbeen carefully categorized. However, as described in LidaMattman's 1974 book , the Rous virus has been found to b ea classical bacterium. Citing Dr. Elean or A lexander-Jackson'swork, Mattman explained that the Rous virus produces DNAas well as RNA. V iruses supposedly contain only DNA o rRNA, not both.The orthodox virus school undoubtedly has difficulty withthe fact that one of th e classical viruses-if not the m os tfamous-is in truth a filtrable bacterium .In a paper presented to the New Y ork Academ y of Sciencesin 1969, Dr. Virginia Livingston and Dr. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson declared that a single cancer micro-organism exists.They said that the reason the army of cancer researcherscouldn't find it was because it changed form. Livingston andAlexander-Jackson asserted:The organism has remained an unclassified mystery, due

in part to its remarkable pleomorphism and its stimulation ofother micro-organisms. Its various phases may resemble vir-uses, micrococci, diptheroids, bacilli, and fungi.Florence Seibert, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania and Dr. Irene Diller from the Institutefor Cancer Research in Ph iladelphia made essentially the sa m eargument to the New York Academy of Sciences in 1967.Seibert's book ebbles o the Hi f Scientist (1968)includes the following: We found that we were able to isolatebacteria from every piece of tumor and every acute leukemicblood specimen that we had. This was published in the Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences.Seibert also clearly recognized pleom orphism as the under-lying scientific reality which must be appreciated if cancer isto be cured:

One of the most interesting properties of these bacter~a23


30/177

their great pleomorphism. For example, they readily changetheir shape from round cocci, to elongated rods, and e v e n tolong thread-like filaments depending upon what medium th eygrow on and how long they grow. And even more interestingthan this is the fact that these bacteria have a filterable ormin their life cycle; that is, that they can become so small thatthey pass through bacterial filters which hold back bacteria.This is what viruses do, and is one of the main criteria of avirus, separating them from bacteria. Bu t the viruses al so wi llnot live on artificial media like these bacteria do. . Ourfilterable form , however, can be reco vere d again on o rd in ar yartificial bacterial media and will grow on these.The Mayo Clinic's D r. Edward Rosen ow , who w or ke d withKendall in the preparatory stage of the successful cancerclinic, had written as early as 9 4 in the Journal of Infect iousDiseases that, It would seem that fo cal infections are nolonger to be looked upon merely as a place of entrance ofbacteria, but as a place where conditions are favorable forthem to acquire the properties which give them a w id e rangeof affinities for various structures.This was also Bechamp's conclusion back in the 9th cen-tury-that the body's environment prod uc ed a place fo r mic ro -organisms to become diseased bacteria and that improving thebody's internal environment could alter bacteria into ha rm le ss ,even useful microzymia. E. Douglas Hume has written,Bechamp . . had demonstrated the connection between

disturbed state of body and the disturb ed state of its in dw el li ngparticles, which , upon an unfortuna te alteration in th e i r sur-roundings, are hampered in their normal multiplication ashealthy microzymas and are consequently prone to developinto organisms of varied shape, kn ow n as bacteria. U p o n animprovement in their environment, the bacteria, acc ord ing toBechamp's view, by a form of devolution may return to theirmicrozymian state, but much sm aller an d more nume rous thanthey were originally .At the end of 971, Congress passed the National CancerAct. As Robin and David Nicholas later wrote V i ro l ogy , a nInformation P rofile) in 1983, In the 1970s research i n t o therole of viruses in cancer was virtually given a blank c he ck ,

particularly in the USA, the powerhouse of virus research .


31/177

Bacteria and its various forms were ign ore d. Even in 1 98 6,when researchers mention bacteria as a possible cause ofcanc er, they are dismisse d by the experts. O ne high univer-sity official stopped reading a report on the 1934 cancer curewhen he came across the word bacteria, so brainwashed w a she to the certainty that viruses were the cau se of cancer w hi lebacteria were of no importance in cancer.And yet, by 1986, despite the massive fundings of virusresearch, more peo ple than ever continue d t o die of cancer.Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the world's largestnon-profit cancer research center, and still t h e leading institu-tional opponent of pleomorphism research and related cancertreatment in Am erica, stated in a 1986 fund-raising appeal t h a tover 460 ,000 A mericans died of cancer i n 198 5. (Sloan-Ket-tering's ow n 1975 tests had indicated pleom orphic bacteria-virus in ll cancer blood tests, but they had buried the labora-tory results.)In 19 74, Rockefeller University's Dr. Norman Zi nd eradmitted, We don 't know how to attack canc er, much le s sconquer it, because we don't understand eno ug h about how i tworks.Yet the answer existed then and now in scientific journals,Academy of Sciences' reports, books, ol d newspapers, a n dother forms. If money wasn't being invested into carefulresearch and cross-referencing of all the relevant literature,then why wasn't it?The cancer authorities-in the 1980s as in earlier decades-had censored ideas and researchers who a rg ue d the unorthodoxpleomorphism cause and cure for cancer. Th e money and cl in -ical trials went to orthodox virus monomorphism supportersand chemical treatments aimed at killing cancerous ceiis n o tmicro-organisms in the bloodstream at tacki ng the entire b o d y .The funding procedure was essentially stacked against thosewho, ev en though top scientists, didn't parro t the conventional(and wrong) beliefs.Ralph W . Moss, former Assistant Director of Public A ffa irsat Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer C en te r explained t h eroadblo ck in his 19 80 book The Cancer S-yndrirotne: A n e wgrant request must therefore be approved by a wide variety oscientists, bureaucrats and businessmen. t must be the result


32/177

of a onsensus of opinion among these many individuals.Almost by definition, however, such an application must bewell within the bounds of conventional science. These 'cum-bersome constraints' make it difficult, if not impossible forradically new ideas to be approved by the NCI. (NCI theNational Cancer Institute)The radically new ideas might include the one that curedcancer in the California clinic in 1934. The 460,000 Amer -icans scheduled to needlessly die in the next year might likesome of their tax money to fund a new clinic using those longcovered-up ideas and technologies. As Frank J Rauscher, Jr.,Director of the National Cancer Institute, rhetorically asked in1975, What are we doing with the taxpayer's money?It is a question which no one in authority wants to answerhonestly-the horrible results of the cancer cure cover-up aretoo well-known. The death toll from 197 to the present(1986) is more than 6 million, matching the Nazi holocaust.When the death count includes those who died from 1 9 3 4 to1970, the number of victims is staggering. The cancer curecover-up is America's holocaust.A political firestorm could erupt if a large sector o f theAmerican public learned the truth.


33/177

Chapter 3Medicine in merica

The suppression of the successful cancer cure first used in1934 took place because of a unique set of factors. Amo ngthese factors were: the virtual one-m an rule within the Amer-ican Medical Association, scientific rivalries, institutionalpride and arrogance, a pow er-hungry head at M emorial Sloan-Kettering determined to find his own cure for cancer even iit required squashing those with different views, pharmaceu-tical companies with vested interests which slowly took con-trol of the direction o f A merica s cancer prog ram, and politi-cal-media timidity in the area of medical oversight. Therewere a num ber of junctures during the ye ars since 1934 wh en,if o ne person in a critical position had acted courageously, th eentire history of medicine in this century could have beenaltered. B ut it didn t happen. Th e resulting cost in lives an dresources has been incalculable. It is not an exaggeration t osay that the cover-up, suppression, and failure to evaluate the1934 cancer cure has been an American catastrophe exceed inganything in our history. Even if the 1 934 cure can b eimplemented in the late 1980s, nothing can disguise the w as teand horror of what has happened.The American Medical Association was formed in 1846,but it wasn t until 1901 that a reorganization enabled it to ga inpower over how medicine was practiced throughout America.By becoming a confederation of state medical associationsand forcing doctors who wanted to belong to their countymedical society to join the state association, the AMA soonincreased its membership to include a majority of physicians.Then, by accrediting medical schools, it began determiningthe standards and practices of doctors. Tho se who refused t oconform lost their license to practice medicine.

27


34/177

In 1912 the AMA established its cooperative ad ve rti sin gbureau. Soon the AMA 's Chicago headquarters de ter m ine dnot only who could advertise in the stat e medical jou rnal s bu thow much advertisers were expected to pay if their productswere to be approved. Morris Fishbein was the virtual dic -tator of the AMA from the mid-1920s until he was ousted onJune 6 1949 at the AM A convention in Atlantic Ci ty. B u teven after he was forced from his position of power becauseof a revolt from several state deleg ations of doctors, th epolicies he had set in motion continued o n for many ye ar s. H edied in the early 1970s.The Illinois Medical Society had warned as early as 1 9 2 2about what was happening, but few paid attention or dared tooppose the trend: The AMA is a one-man organization, T h eentire medical profession of the United State s is at the m e r c yof one man. The Journ al controls al l the funds.One example demonstrates how the AMA advertising andapproval racket worked. According to Morris A. B e a l e ,author of two books, The Super Drug S tory and edical M u s -solini C. G ildner of Los Angeles contracted with K i n g ' sLaboratories to distribute a product called Maelum. K i n g ' sLaboratories requested approval by the AMA for its product.On October 27 , 1931, AMA director Fishbein wrote t h a t itwas approved. On November 10, 1 931, Gildner wasapproached by Fishbein to purchase advertising in the n at io na lAMA Journal o r any of the 42 state medical journals. G il d n e rrefused. On November 16 1931, one week later, thro ugh theAMA's Committee on Foods, Fishbein revoked the A M A ' sseal of approval.According to Beale, this procedure was common practice.Products weren't tested for their effects o n health. Only a d v e r -tising revenues were considered. In sh ort, the AMA for m a n yyears was abusing its position of power to shake down poten-tial advertisers. Even worse, it was selling its product ap p ro va lseal to advertisers whose products were unsafe and unh ea lth y.Products virtually the same would be foun d on the A M A ' sapproved and disap prove d lists-the only distinction b e i n gwhether their manufacturers advertised in the Journal o theAMA.


35/177

The man responsible for this state of affairs was, in thewords of Associated Press Science Writer Howard Blakeslee,Morris Fishbein, the Kingpin of Am erican Med icine. Fish-bein operated out of the AMA's Chicago headquarters.A few years after the successful cancer clinic of 1934, Dr.R. T. Hamer, who did not participate in the clinic, began touse the procedure in Southern California. According to Benja-min Cullen, who observed the entire development of thecancer cure from idea to implementation, Fishbein found outand tried to buy in. When he was turned down , Fishbeinunleashed the AMA to destroy the cancer cure.Cullen recalled: Dr. Ham er ran an averag e of forty casesa day through his place. He had to hire two operators. Hetrained them and watched them very closely. The case his-tories were mounting up very fast. Among them was this oldman from Chicago. He had a malignancy all around his faceand neck. It was a gory mass. Just terrible. Just a red gorymass. It had taken over all around his face. It had taken offone eyelid at the bo ttom of the eye . It had taken off the bottomof the lower lobe of the ear and had also gone into the cheekarea, nose and chin. He was a sight to behold.But in six months all that was left was a little black spoton the side of his fac e and the condition of that was such thatit was about to fall off. Now that man was 8 years of age. Inever saw anything like it. The delight of having a lovelyclean skin again, just like a baby's skin.Well he went back to Chicago. Naturally he couldn't kee pstill and Fishbein heard about it. Fishbein called him in andthe old man was kind of reticent about telling him . So Fishbeinwined and dined him and finally learned about his cancertreatment by Dr. Hamer in the San Diego clinic.Well soon a man from Los Angeles came down. He hadseveral meetings w ith us. Finally he took us ou t to dinner a n dbroached the subject about buying it. W ell we wouldn't do it.The renown was spreading and we weren't even advertising.But of course what did t was the case histories of Dr. Hamer.He said that this was the most marvelous development of theage. His case histories were absolutely wonderful.Fishbein bribed a partner in the company. With the resu l t


36/177

we were kicked into court-operating with out a license. I w a sbroke after a vear.In 1939 , ui de r pressure from the local medical society , D r.R. T. Hamer abandoned the cure. He is n ot one of the h e r o e sof this story.Thus, within the few, short years from 1934 to 1 9 3 9 , th ecure for cancer was clinically demonstrated and expanded intocuring other diseases on a daily basis by other doctors, an dthen terminated when Morris Fishbein of the AMA w a s n otallowed to buy in. It was a practice he had developed intoa cold art but never again would such a single mercenarydeed doom millions of Am ericans to premature, ugly d e a th s.It was the AMA 's most shameful hour. In years to co m e , itmay be the ev ent w hich triggers lawsuits against the AMA fordamages exceeding anything in American legal history.Where was the federal government at this time (1938-1939)? Just getting organized. The Hy gienic Laboratory wa sreorganized into the National Institutes of Health in 1 93 0 , bu tin 1938 it was in the process of moving into its permanentlocation outside Washington, D.C. in Bethesda, Maryland.The National Institutes of Health were a small operation then.The National Can cer Institute had been created only in 1 9 3 7 .Government grants to cure cancer were on ly beginning. A ndin 1938, Fishbein was in Washington, D.C. lobbying t o st opRoosevelt's first effort to establish a national health program.Keeping the government out of the health business as w e ll askeeping outsiders with a lasting cure f o r cancer out in thecold were the objectives of those who th en had a monopolyon medicine.The insiders included two other groups-the pr iv at eresearch centers and the pharmaceutical companies. Paul Stanexplained the situation in his 1984 Pulitzer Prize book, TheSocial Transformation o MedicineBetween 1900 and 1940 the primary sources of financingfor medical research were private. Private foundations anduniversities were the principal sponsors and hosts of basicresearch. The most richly endowed research center, the Roc-kefeller Institute for Medical Research, was established in

1902 and y 1928 had received from John D. Rockefeller 65million in endowment funds.


37/177


38/177

its growing power, and many powerful connections to discon-cert those who oppose it.Yet with all this wealth at its disposal for so many ye ars ,and its purpose the eradication of cancer, the American CancerSociety has not been able to find those scientists who havescientifically isolated the cancer micro-organism o r thosepioneer researchers and doctors who cured it in 1934and after-wards. Bad luck, incompetence, or something else?Thus the major players on the cancer field are the doctors,the private research institutions, the pharmaceutical com-panies, the American Cancer Society, and also the U.S. gov-ernment through the National Cancer Institute (organizingresearch) and the Food and Drug Administration (the dreadedFDA which keeps the outsiders on the defensive through raids,legal harassment, and expensive testing procedures).The people in these institutions, and especially their politi-cal management, all proclaim their professionalism, dedica-tion, and expertise. The results tell a very different story.Ralph Moss exposes the chink in the cancer establishment'sarmor with a single quotation in he Cancer Syndrome. It isby the late Sloan-Kettering chemotherapist David Karnofsky:The relevant matter in examining any form of treatment isnot the reputation of its proponent, the persuasiveness o f histheory, the eminence of its lay supporters, the testimony ofpatients, or the existence of public controversy, but simply-does the treatment work?

If only Rivers, Fishbein, Rhoads and the army of currentskeptical research-oriented scientists, bureaucrats, phar-maceutical spokesmen, philanthropists and other credentialedprofessionals had honored the scientific and moral rightnessof Karnofsky's thought, the cure for cancer might not havebeen suppressed for decades and might have a chance f or aswift testing and implementation today.David M . Locke emphasized the same point as Karnofskyin the book Viruses

One of the dicta of the University of Chica go's great c a n c e rresearcher and Nobel Laureate, Charles B. Huggins, is: ' T h ething about cancer is to cure it. '


39/177

Chapter 4The Man Who FoundThe ure For ancer

In 1913 a man with a love for machines and a scientificcuriosity arrived in San Diego after driving across the countryfrom New York. He had been born in Elkhorn, Nebraska, was25 years old, and very happily married. He was about to starta new life and open the way to a science of health which willbe honored far into the future. His name was Royal RaymondRife. Close friends, who loved his gentleness and humilitywhile being awed by his genius, called him Roy.Royal R. Rife was fascinated by bacteriology, microscopesand electronics. For the next 7 years (including a mysteriousperiod in the Navy during World War I in which he traveledto Europe to investigate foreign laboratories for the U.S. gov-ernment), he thought about and experimented in a variety offields as well as mastered the mechanical skills necessary tobuild instruments such as the world had never imagined.

So it was that, in 1920 when the great idea of his life cameto him, Royal Rife was ready. Journalist Newall Jonesdescribed the historic moment in the May 6 1938 veningTribune of San Diego:

The San Diego man, who is hailed by many as a veritablegenius, has exper~mentedwith important studies, inventionsand discoveries in an unbelievably wide and varied array ofsubjects. These fields of pursuit range from ballistics and rac-ing auto construction to optics and many equally profoundsciences. And in 1920he was Investigating the possibilities ofelectrical treatment of diseases.It was then that he noticed these individualistic differences

in the chemical constituents of disease organisms and saw theindication of electrical characteristics, observed electr~calpolarities in the organisms.


40/177

Random speculation on the observation suddenly stirred inhis mind a startling, astonishing thought.'What would happen if I subjected these organisms to different electrical frequencies?' he w ondered.So he began to gather the tools necessary to do so: m i c r o -scopes, electronic equipment, tubes, bacteriological equip-ment, cages for guinea pigs, cameras, and machinery t o bu il dhis own designs. Two San Diego industrialists-Tirnken,owner of the Tirnken Roller Bearing Company and Bridges,owner of the Bridges Camag e Company-provided f u n d s toestablish a laboratory and finance Rife's research.By the late 1920s the first ph ase of his work was c o m -

pleted. He had built his first microscope, one that broke theexisting principles, and he had constructed instruments w h i c henabled him to electronically destroy specific pathologicalmicro-organisms.In the years that followed, he would improve and perfectthese early models, identify and classify disease-causingmicro-organisms in a totally unique w ay , including their e x a c tM.O.R. or Mortal Oscillatory Rate (the precise frequencywhich blew them up ) and then, in cooperation with l e a d i n gbacteriologists such as Rosenow and Ken dall, along with le ad -ing doctors, cure cancer and other diseases in people.Every step was controversial, origin al, difficult and ti m e-consuming. The opposition was powerful. They eventuallydid break him and many of those wh o collaborated with h i m ,but not before Rife left records, microscopes, electronic fre-quency instruments, and methods whic h will enable later ge n-erations to establish an entirely new fo rm of painless, no n-d rughealing.As one of Rife's co-workers recalled i n 1958, for ty- fiv eyears after he met the genius of San Diego:

He finally got to a point where from years of isolation a n dclarification and purification of these filterable forms, he c o u l dproduce cancer in the guinea pigs in two weeks. He tried it o nrats, guinea pigs and rabbits, but he found finally that he c o u l dconfine his efforts to guinea pigs and w hite rats because e v e r ydoggone one was his pet. And he performed the operations o nthem in the most meticulous operations you ever want to sin all your born days. No doctor could ever come near to i t .


41/177

He had to wear a big powerful magn ifying glass. He performedthe most wonderful operations you ever saw. Completelyeradicating every tentacle out from the intestines, and sewedthe thing up and it got well and didn't know anything about itat all. Did it not once but hundreds of times. This is a thingthat again and again I wish was published. I wish with all myheart that all the detailed information that he develop ed couldbe published because the man deserves it.He finally got these cultures on the slide. He could lookthrough this thing and you could see them swimming aroundabsolutely motile and active. Then he'd say, 'Watch that. 'He'd go turn on the frequency lamp s. Wh en it got to a certainfrequency, he'd release the whole doggone flood of powerinto the room. The doggone little things would die instantly.He built the microscopes himself. He built the micro-man-ipulator himself. And the micro-dissector and a lot of otherstuff.I've seen Roy sit in that doggon e seat without moving,watching the changes in the frequency, watching when thetime would come when the virus in the slide would bedestroyed. Twenty-four hours was nothing for him. Forty-eight hours. He had done it many times. Sit there withoutmovin g. He wouldn't touch anything except a little wate r. Hisnerves were just like cold steel. He never moved. His handsnever quivered.

Of course he would train beforehand and go thro ugh a verycareful workout afterward to build himself up again. But thatis what would call on e of the most magnificent sights ofhuman control and endurance I 'd e ver seen.I've seen the cance r virus. I have s een the polio viru s. I'veseen the TB virus. Here was a man showing people, showingdoctors, these viruses of many different kinds of diseases.especially those three deadly ones-TB, polio and canc er.

Tirne and time aga in since that time som e of these medicalmen have ma de the prou d discovery that they had isolated wewill say one of the viruses of cancer, had isolated one of theviruses of polio. Why that was one of the most ridiculousthings in the world. Thirty-five years ago Roy Rife showedthem these things.These machines demonstrate that you could cure cancer-all crazy notions of usurping the rights of the AMA not-withstanding. They definitely could take a leaf out of RoyRife's book and do an awful lot of good to this world for


42/177

sickness and disease. As a consequence, we have lost mi lli on sof people that could have been healed by Rife's machines.I like Roy Rife. I'll always remem ber Roy as my I d e a l.He has a tremendous capacity for knowledge and a trem end ouscapacity for remembering what he has learned. He defin i telywas my Ideal. Outside of old Teddy Roosevelt, I don't kn o wof any man any smarter than him and 1'11 bank him up againsta hundred doctors because he did know his stuff with hisscientific know ledge in so many lines. He had so many w r in k -ies that he could have ca shed in and ma de millions out of t ifhe had wanted to and I do mean millions of dollars. W h i c hwould have benefited the human race, irrespective of this tr e -mendous thing that he built which w e call the Rife r a ymachine.In my estimation Roy was one of the most gentle, genteel,self-effacing, mora l men I ever met. No t onc e in all the y e a r sI was going over there to the lab, and that was approxim ately3 years, did I ever hear him say one word out of place.All the doctors used to beat a path t o Rife's lab door a n dthat was a beautiful lab at one time. It was beautifully ar ra ng edinside. The equipment was just exactly right; his study w a sjust wonderful. It was a place of relics and the atmospherecould not be duplicated anywhere.


43/177

ChapterThe 192 s

Rife began in 1920 by searching for an electronic means todestroy the micro-organism which caused tuberculosis. It wasin that first year that the original radio frequency instrumentwas built. Since the frequency which would kill the micro-organism was unknown, Rife had to proceed by trial and error.Rife and his associates conducted test after test.Finally he achieved success, but the success produced moreproblems. The micro-organism had been killed, but in severalcases the guinea pigs died of toxic poisoning. Three yearswere spent in finding an answer. He suspected that a virusfrom the bacteria was responsible. He would have to devise away to obtain the virus in pure form in order to determine itsfrequency and thus kill it without injuring the pigs.Rife s first microscope also was completed in 1920although he began building it in 1917. From 1920 to 1925,some 20,000 pathological tissues were sectioned and stained.However, they failed to show any unknown bacteria or foreignmaterial under the highest power. Rife continued to improveit, searching for a way to see the viruses.He knew about the 19th century work of Voghn and laterRobert Cook who were able to destroy the rod form of thetuberculosis bacteria with vaccine and anti-toxins, but stillwere left with experirnental animals which died. Rife theorizedthat they had released the virus by killing the bacteria-just ashe had done when he destroyed the Bacillus of Tuberculosiswith his radio frequency instrument. Unless he could see thevirus and determine ts frequency, he couldn t cure TB withhis method. But if he could see in his microscope both thebacterial and the viral forms of TB, he could determine theirseparate frequencies and k l l them both at the same time


44/177

Rife believed that the minuteness of th e viruses m a d e itimpossible to stain them with the existing acid or aniline dyestains. He'd have to find another way. Somewhere a lo n g theway, he made an intuitive leap often associated with the gr ea t-est scientific discoveries. He conceived fi rs t the idea a n d th enthe method of staining the virus with light He began buildinga microscope which would enable a frequency of light t o co or -dinate with the chemical constituents of th e particle or rn ic ro -organism under observation.Rife later explained to a reporter how h e was able t o m ak ethis leap. In a front page article of the San Diego Union onNovember 3 19 29 , Rife is quoted, If one man is bac-teriologist and know s what is needed and another is amechanic who tries to build it, they may get somewhere, butthey w ill do it slowly and imperfectly. B u t if both th es e menare the same man he will know the set-up from both angles;then if you add delicacy, accuracy, m echanical skill, t h e will-ingness to keep proper records, ingenuity and the patience tolearn from failures, you will be well along toward the so lu ti o nof your problem an d the perfection of the necessary ap pa ra tu s,whatever it is.Rife's second microscope was finished in 1929. In an ar tic lewhich appeared in the Los ngeles Tim es agazine onDecember 27, 1 9 31 , the existence of the lig ht staining m e th o dwas reported to the public:

Bacilli may thus e studied by the ir light, exactly asastronomers study moons, suns, and stars by the light whichcomes from them through telescopes. The bacilli studied ar eliving ones, not corpses killed y stains.Throughout most of this period, Rife also had been seekinga way to identify and then destroy the micro-organism wh ic hcaused cancer. His cancer research began in 1922. It wouldtake him until 1 932 to isolate the respon sible micro-organismwhich he later named simply the BX virus.The 1920s wer e the years of pure isolated research f o r Rife.There were no fam ous microbiologists com ing to his d o o r , nodoctors seeking to use his frequency instrument o n theirpatients, no requests from microscope exper ts to be al lo w edto learn about his invention, no medical committees e s t ab-


45/177

lished to coordinate the laboratory and clinical results, norenowned cancer experts negotiating to work with him in hislab, no cancer foundations trying to fit his discoveries intotheir grant procedures. But all the scientific isolation was toend soon after the microscope's existence was reported in1929.Rife would have to make time for experimental demonstra-tions, letters, and meetings. He'd have to deal with morepeople, and still preserve time for the exhausting researchwhich only he could do because only he knew how to do it.Others could help, and they did, but they also got in the way.Then there would be the businessmen promoters and doctorswho would try to steal his work. There would be the opposi-tion from scientists whose own authority, prestige, and posi-tion would be challenged by Rife's discoveries. And therewould be the powerful attempt by Morris Fishbein and theAMA to destroy the man whose miraculous treatment theycould not buy into .So in retrospect the 1920s seem to be some of Rife's mostfrustrating years as he struggled to find answers. But inanother sense, they were his golden years of what he calledpure science .On November 3 1929, the un iego nion carried a frontpage article titled Local Man Bares Wonders of Germ Life.The article described the wonders Rife could accomplish withhis new microscope. It announced that Rife's light stainingmethod was nearing perfection. The article explained:

He holds a theory that the harsh acid stains used to bringout features of the tissue, as well as the complicated treatmentnow necessary to prepare it for the slides, conspire to defeattheir own objective.He believes that the chemical baths themselves destroy thevery germ that science is trying to pin under the microscope.So he is evolving new method that will do away withchemicals. Instead of five days' hard work being necessarybefore a pickled and probably worthless section of tissue canbe put under the lens, he expects within three minutes to placea perfectly normal, undoped slice of the diseased substance inposition for examination.The possibilities of this process once t is perfected, he


46/177

believes are boundless. Medical men who for all time h a v ebeen destroying the very thing they were looking for, w h i lethey were getting ready to look at it, may in this one step f indan end to much of human suffering.The roaring 20s were over. Two w eeks before the fir stnewspaper article, the stock market had crashed. A d e c a d e o fdepression lay ahead for America. And Rife's fabulous dis-coveries, inventions, and health miracles would have t o c o n -tend not only with professional scientific skepticism a n dpowerful medical union determined t control the heal thbusiness, but also w ith the national economic crisis w h i c hmade financing research a difficult and complicated ch al le ng e.Yet his primary goal would be accomplished. The c a n c e rmicro-organism would be isolated and destroyed. Te rm in allyill cancer patients would be treated. An d the y would be h e a l e d .Rife would do what he had set out to do . It would be d e c a d e sbefore his work would be recognized. B ut the pure sc ie nc ehe accomplished mean t the deadly BX cancer m icro-organismsomeday would be blown up in tho se suffering f r o m itseffects.


47/177

Chapter 6The Early 193 s

In 1931 the two men who provided the greatest profes-sional support to Royal R. Rife came into his life. Dr. ArthurI. Kendall was Director of Medical Research at NorthwesternUniversity Medical School in Illinois. Dr. Milbank Johnsonwas a member of the board of directors at Pasadena Hospitalin California and an influential power in Los A ngeles medica lcircles. Together, R ife , Kendall and Johnson slowly and car e-fully began an assault on the scientific and medicalorthodoxies of their time.Probably because of the November 3 192 9 news article i nthe San Diego Union, Dr. Kendall had learned about Rife'swonder microscope. He asked his friend Dr. Johnson of L o sAngeles if such a microscope truly existed. D r. Johnson a n dDr. A lvin G . Foord, th e pathologist at Pasadena Hospital ( a n dlater President of the American Association of Pathologists),journeyed to San D iego along with two other doctors. Foo rd'spresence from the beginning is important because later he liedabout his participation in the great scientific endeavor whichfollowed. By the 1950s the AMA and the California S ta teBoard of Public Health were comm itted to squelching the Ri fecancer cure. By then many millions of people had died be ca us ethe cancer cure had been suppressed, doctors who had usedthe instrument succcssfuliy were being persecuted, and thosewith reputations to preserve were literally lying through t h e irteeth as docum ents and personal testimony show.But in 1931 when Johnson and Foord first met Rife, thefuture seemed to hold only endless medical advances becauseof Rife's wonderful microscope. Th e four doctors were i m -pressed. Johnson returned to Los Angeles and wired a r epo r t


48/177

to Kendall in Chicago. Kendall sent a telegram back, E xp ec tto start for California Saturday night.Dr. Kendall had invented a protein cu ltu re medium (c a ll e dK Medium after its inventor) which enab led the fil tra bl evirus portions of a bacteria to e isolated and to continuereproducing. This claim directly contra dicted the R ockefe llerInstitute's Dr. Thomas Rivers who in 926 had authoritativelystated that a virus needed a living tissue for reproduction.Rife, Kendall and others were to prove within a year t h a t itwas possible to cultivate viruses artifi cial ly. Rivers, i n hisignorance and obstinacy, was responsible for suppressing o n eof the greatest advances ever made in med ical know ledge.Of course, when Rivers opposed Ken dall in 1932 and ca l ledhim a liar at the meeting of the Asso ciation of American Ph y s i-cians in Baltimore, Rivers had not had t h e opportunity t o se ethe viruses on the K M edium under Ri fe 's microscope. B utRivers wasn't interested in learning about the microscope,even after other top bacteriologists saw th e same results. R iv -ers' mistaken notion is still law in orth odo x circles of the1980s.Kendall arrived in California in mid-November 1931 andJohnson introduced him to Rife. Ke nd all brought h is KMedium to Rife and Rife brought his microscope to K en da ll .A meeting of historic importance took pla ce .A typhoid germ was put in the K M ediu m, triple-filteredthrough the finest filter available, and the results examinedunder Rife's microscope. Tiny, distinct bodies stained in aturquoise-blue light were visible. K en da ll could see theproof of what he had demonstrated by other means. Two his-toric breakthroughs in science had happened. The virus cul-tures grew in the K M edium and w er e visible. The vi ru se scould be light stained and then clas sifie d according t o th eirown colors under Rife's unique microscope.A later report which appeared in the Smithsonian's annualpublication gives a hint of the totally original microscopictechnology which enabled man to see a deadly virus-sizemicro-organism in its live state for the fir st time (the el ec tro nmicroscope of later years kills its specimens):

Then they were examined under the Rife microscope where


49/177

the filterable virus form of typhoid bacillus, emitting a bluespectrum color, caused the plane of polarization to be deviated4.8 degrees plus. When the opposite angle of refraction wasobtained by means of adjusting the polarizing prisms to minus4.8 degrees and the cultures of viruses were illuminated by themonochromatic beams coordinated with the chemical con-stituents of the typh oid bacillus, small, o val, actively motile,bright turquoise-blue bodies were observed at 5000 magnifi-cation, in high contrast to the colorless and motionless debrisof the medium. These tests were repeated 18 times to verifythe results.Fol lowing the succes s , Dr. Milbank Johnson quicklyarranged a dinner in honor of the two men in order that thediscovery could be announced and discussed. More than 30of the most prominent medical doctors, pathologists, and bac-teriologists in Los Ang eles attended this historic event onNovember 20 1931. Among those in at te ndan ce were DrAlvin G F o o r d w h o 20 years later would indicate he knewlit tle about Rife 's d iscoveries and Dr. Ge or ge Dock w howould serve on the Univers i ty of Southern Cal ifornia 's SpecialResearch Committee overseeing the cl in ical work unt i l he,too, would go over to the opposition.On November 22 1931, the Los Angeles imes reportedthis important med ical gathering and its scien tifi c significance:

Scientific discoveries of the greatest magnitude, includinga discussion of the world's most powerful microscope recentlyperfected after 14 years effort by Dr. Royal R. Rife of SanDiego, were de scribed Friday evening to mem ber s of the med-ical profession, bacteriologists and pathologists at a dinnergiven by Dr. Milbank Johnson in honor of Dr. Rife and Dr.A I. Kendall.Before the gathering of distinguished men, Dr. Kendalltold of his researches in cultivating the typhoid bacillus on hisnew 'K Me dium.' T he typhoid bacillus is nonfilterab le and islarge enoug h to be seen easily with micro scop es in generaluse. Through the use of 'medium K,' Dr. Kendall said, theorganism is so altered that it cannot be seen with ordinarymicroscopes and it becomes small enough to be ultra-micro-scopic o r filterable. It then can be changed bac k to the micro-scopic or non-filterable form.Through the use of Dr. Rife's powerful microscope, said


50/177

to have a visual power of magnification to 17 000 times, com-pared with 2000 times of which the ordinary microscope i scapable, Dr. Kendall said he could see the typhoid bacilli i nthe filterable or formerly invisible stage. It is probably the firsttime the minute filterable (virus) organisms ever have beenseen.The strongest microscope now in use can magnify between2000 and 2500 times. Dr. Rife, by an ingenious arrangementof lenses applying an entirely new optical principle and b yintroducing double quartz prisms and powerful illuminatinglights, has devised a microscope with a lowest magnificationof 5 000 times and a maximum working magnification of17 000 times.

The new microscope, scientists predict, also w ll provedevelopment of the first magnitude. Frankly dubious about th eperfection of a microscope which appears to transcend t h elimits set by optic science, Dr. Johnson's guests expressedthemselves as delighted with the visual demonstration a n dheartily accorded both Dr. Rife and Dr. Kendall foremostplace in the world's rank of scientists.Five days later, the Los Angeles Times published a photoof Rife and Kendall with the microscope. It was the first t i m ea picture of the super microscope had appeared in public. T h eheadline read, The World's Most Powerful Microscope.Meanwhile, Ri fe and Kendall had prepared an article forthe December 931 issue of California and WesternM edic in eObservations on Bacillus Typhosus in its Filtrable Statedescribed what Rife and Kendall had done and seen. The jour-nal was the official publication of the state medical associa-tions of California, Nevada and Utah.The prestigious Science magazine then carried an articlewhich alerted the scientific community of the entire nation.The December 1, 93 Science News supplement included asection titled, Filtrable Bodies Seen With The Rife Micro-scope. The article described Kendall's filtrable medium cul -ture, the turquoise blue bodies which were the filtered f o r mof the typhoid bacillus, and Rife's microscope. It included thefollowing description:The light used with Dr. Rife's microscope is polarized, tha tis, t is passing through crystals that stop all rays except those


51/177

vibrating in one particular plane. By means of a double reflect-ing prism built into the instrument, it is possible to turn thisplane of vibration in any desired directio n, controlling theillumination of the minute objects in the field very exactly.On December 27, 1931 the Los ngeles imes reportedthat Rife had demonstrated the microscope a t a meeting of 250scientists. The article explained, This is a new kind of mag-nifier, and the laws governing microscopes may not apply toit. Dr. Rife ha s developed an instrument that mayrevolutionize laboratory metho

Royal Rife - The Cancer Cure That Worked (Barry Lynes, 1987)_1

Documents

Transcript of Royal Rife - The Cancer Cure That Worked (Barry Lynes, 1987)_1