I have looked at the entry for Royal Rife on Wikipedia because it comes up right next to my Rife machine dot com in the native listings of a Google search.
I consider it to be a very disappointing performance from Wikipedia. Certainly they can do better than that. They have allowed it to become a thinly disguised attack on everything Rife-related. Behind the mask of calling it a biography.
For those of you who have already experienced the truth about this technology, I don’t need to explain how unjust their entry appears. It’s insultingly misguided.
Right off the bat, they fail to mention that Dr. Rife was the foremost microscopist in the world. Probably the greatest who ever lived. His achievements were not equaled for many years after his passing.
The devices that came after Rife have absolutely nothing to do with his biography. The significant changes he made during his life were primarily pertaining to his microscopes and his observations with them. This is equivalent to inventing your own moon rocket and reporting back what you find there.
Obviously, if I do not have my own moon rocket, I cannot confirm or deny these reports. Even if you loan me your moon rocket, I might be motivated to fail with it, just to avoid confirming your results. Especially if I am your direct competitor.
Remember, Royal Rife first viewed living viruses. He observed them throughout their life cycle; and he put forth the notion of pleomorphism, which to a certain extent stood the medical world on it’s head.
He postulated that if he de-vitalized the virus he commonly viewed in cancer, he could reverse the disease. And he set about to prove it. And he did. He was extolled by respected members of the medical profession, as well as in the Press.
I don’t see them blaming Edison for all the people who have been electrocuted in the electric chair. Henry Ford is not condemned for all the lives lost in automobiles. Not to mention the fact that most users of Rife machines already have a chronic or otherwise incurable problem which puts them at risk.
The Australian case referred to on Wikipedia was reported to me at the time as being a pair of concerned parents who were unimpressed with the prospects of chemotherapy for their child. They opted to take him elsewhere. It was presumably their intention to try Rife therapy first, which in most cases is a better choice before taking a nosedive into a conventional therapy that has little chance of success, and promises enormous collateral damage whether it works or not.
From that perspective, Rife therapy is a far less hazardous route; and it is totally logical to pursue it first, before embarking on a conventional protocol from which there is simply no return.
The Australian authorities apparently wanted to show that the parents were negligent for allegedly denying their son treatment. How can a government know what therapy is best?? They went to the trouble of making it a big deal. What possible motive does the government have to try to force a family to endure a procedure which they do not want and do not trust??