Thanks Jeff. I understand and think the idea of viruses as solvents makes sense and can see the deception happening in the main stream as far as how viruses enter the body and how they enter cells, is a lie. It would be nice to see others who have his same ideas. Is there any other scientists that believe something, not exactly the same but similar? I’m trying to figure out where your stream of knowledge from the past comes from and why you are the only one in the world that thinks this way. It must be lonely!
What was exactly happening in that video where we were told it was thousands of viruses bursting out of a cell? I presume it was the process of Lysis you described?
As far as the raw milk the fear mongering campaign exists for sure but there is something making the cows sick and if it’s not contagion then it’s a toxin. What toxin?
It can indeed be lonely because there seems to be a lack of understanding of the concepts and ideas I discuss. Over time, my ideas have evolved and flourished, and I continue to challenge and verify my beliefs. However, some people psychoanalyze my words and hold my past words against me, but knowledge evolves regardless, and a good researcher must adapt his or her view in accordance with new knowledge—otherwise, they are not a good principled researcher.
I have spent nearly five years actively and closely studying nature, more than I have in the past. This has greatly influenced my understanding of the microscopic realm and the functioning of the human body. I have found that understanding the outer world informs one's knowledge of the inner microscopic world that makes up our body.
Further, personal experiences with coronavirus have provided me with insights into viruses and their symptoms and how and why they occur.
One challenge I encounter is that not everyone learns in the same way. I have a unique learning style and rely on contemplation, visualization, and verification to derive information. I have a photographic memory in many respects, and I can holographically visualize in my mind how things would function if I could see them with my own eyes. So, much of what I say is derived from contemplating and visualizing, and then going out and verifying that information. I've found that the complexity of certain topics, especially including biology (an unseen world to most), can make them esoteric and less understood. However, I've actually found that this is common when trying to deeply understand any subject.
In the video I provided in "Viral Misconceptions", that is a phagocytic cell undergoing lysis, apoptosis (cell death). The particles are not viruses but are cell debris being ejected like water from a balloon with a hole in it. My purpose in including that was only to show how viruses would appear when they left the cell via rupture. I had to add an edit to the description of the video clarifying that it is NOT viruses.
Regarding toxins in cows:
The impact of toxins on cows can vary, depending on their treatment, including antibiotic injections and unnatural feed. Additionally, the cyclical nature of biology and its relationship with nature can cause routine sickness in animals, regardless of toxin exposure. The potential is always there.
What you will find, in the future, is that viruses will continue to increase due to the climate being affected by the overall accumulation of pollution in our atmosphere. And this is partly why there has been an increase in viruses recently. All recent studies are confirming this. Weather is the prime driver of the manifestation of viral infections. Both heat and cold drive cellular reactions and increase the likelihood of viral outbreaks in people and animals.
Each time I have developed coronavirus, it was around the same time each year, right before summer, nearly down to the same week. So, weather changes are highly important in understanding viral outbreaks.
In order to be able to answer such a question objectively, it's imperative to take a step back and understand the difference between masculine and feminine based science. They are not related to gender but merely reflecting the dichotomy existing in ourselves and the world. The dichotomy between the consciousness of mind and body; between Yang and Yin.
The mind is very good at analyzing information in a two dimensional format. It works under the juxtaposition mechanism: 110 degrees Fahrenheit means nothing unless it is juxtaposed to something. To a coffee cup, it’s considered ‘cold’. To the human body, as a temperature, it’s considered ‘hot’.
Everything becomes relative.
It’s very hard for the mind to analyze information from a three dimensional medium, even though that’s the medium it basks in. The mind has to freeze everything, break it down to its tiniest parts, isolate them and then take each part and juxtapose it to another in order to formulate a measurement - a conclusion.
If you look at the format human beings work with; a sheet of paper, retina screen - all of them are two dimensional mediums, translating three dimensional information into a length x width format (Y axis juxtaposed to an X axis). And the moment the mind does that, it loses an enormous amount of information.
It’s like physicists who like to illustrate the age of the universe as a straight line, or geneticists, stringing DNA nucleotides in a straight line. But in reality there are no straight lines in the universe and time doesn’t exist, only movement.
But the underlying reality is more a gradient smear, - a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. So is the body.
From the point of view of mind consciousness, or masculine based science, every phenomenon must have a culprit behind it in the form of a singularity and as a linear cause and effect. But in the underlying reality it doesn’t work that way. Every phenomenon is always a result of several elements combined into a cumulative effect.
.
.
Additionally, as a result, we have an abundance of closed systems. These are extensions of how the mind organizes the data in order to reach understanding. All our scientific systems are in essence closed systems.
A closed system is a system that does not exchange energy or matter between it and the environment. In the universe, as well as in nature, there really is no such thing as a closed system. With the possible exception of a few theoretical or hypothetical systems, all systems in the universe are open systems which are systems that constantly interact and exchange energy and/or matter with their environment.
An open system always strives to be in equilibrium with its active environment so that it cannot absorb, store and utilize any excess energy from the environment. The human body, for example, is an open system.
So the problem is that we have turned science into a closed system. The equations we invent to explain the unexplored or the unknown should make "sense" to the rational mind's way of thinking and perceiving.
If it doesn't make sense and fits our closed reality loops, then just cut parts until it happens. You can't imagine how many times this has happened in the history of physics, for example. And today, it happens in every field. Mathematicians even have a name for this process: renormalization.
Over time, we have deconstructed our observed reality into subjects from which we've developed a huge variety of systems and methodologies: medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, economics, sociology, virology, environmental sciences, etc.
Indeed, we need to organize our frameworks. However, we are currently on the other side of the efficiency arc. These systems have become extremely complex, flooded with redundant language and immensely rigid. Each can no longer communicate with one another as each has become a world of its own.
So the Germ Theory, as well as myriad of other theories in other sectors of life, fall under the way the mind perceives the world. And because the realm of the mind is the only thing we have conscious access to, they’ve become untenable truths over time.
.
.
So if we go back to your question: from the point of view of masculine-based science, yes, there must be a toxin that is the culprit. But the underlying reality is that what’s perceived to be the culprit is merely an effect. Whether it’s in the form of a bacterium, yeast, fungus or a virus.
Masculine based science doesn’t take into account other elements in the environment, beyond the visible scope. These elements include stress induced by electromagnetic fields, either man made or natural such as: geopathic stress, change in radiation in the ionosphere, effects from coronary solar storms, and the base conditions these animals inhabit (close proximity to one another, confinement in a closed space, etc). All of them have an immense effect on organisms on this planet.
But if we bring information to a virologist that links the increase in viral infections to the reduction of the Earth's magnetic field; or alternatively, if we try to talk to an oncologist about the rise of cancer linking them to the rise in Geopathic stress; or if we talk to a epidemiologist about the changes in solar coronal radiation corresponding to epidemics, none of them would be able to understand what's talked about.
They can only understand what they know from the confinement of the closed framework they’ve assimilated, coupled by the respective language with which they've become identified to formulate their convictions.
And so when an organism is experiencing a state of dis-ease, only then masculine based science comes along, opens up the dead carcass, cuts, smears and takes specimen to the lab and says: “we found the culprit” it’s this and that bacteria or virus. While the reality is that it’s the other way around. These are merely an effect of a distressed body.
.
.
The deleterious effect is that nowadays, instead of understanding the underlying mechanism, we try to adapt society to the rigidity of our closed systems. We try to make everyone see the same thing by repeating linear explanations over and over again until things are assimilated as "truths"; a collective consensus. In turn, it prevents humanity from understanding the interrelatedness that exists in between all planes of existence.
The Germ Theory is convenient because it provides what every simplistic view of a problem seeks before all else: a culprit, an invisible hare for the hounds to chase in their costly research labs, universities, hospitals, and drug factories.
The fact that the hare can never be caught is the perfect guarantee that their race will never finish, their demands for funding will never cease, and their ability to generate profits for the drug and chemical corporations will continue to grow.
This is extremely difficult to uproot because this is more than just a theory, but a belief system that has been substantiated well within our cellular memory. Even when you present the invalidity of it, in which non living entities cannot differentiate between discriminant and non discriminate infection, presenting a step by step detailed explanation in which your audience completely understands, they would still disinfect their life, adhering to Germ Theory measures.
More than that, the entire belief system sustains all masculine based science: measures, methodologies, education, financing, budgets, products which is what sustains the livelihood of millions of people who work in these fields. It’s through the germ theory that it is possible to maintain an iron hand of order and control.
What deeply saddens me is that we’re going to see the systemic exterminations of so many land animals and poultry in the coming years, in the name of science.
We have foot soldiers all around who have been inculcated by unsubstantiated fear as a prime motivator for enforcement of such inhumane measures. The bureaucrats who enjoy their safety nets, pontificate their edicts on the people with their outrageous demands to cull billions of animals in a sweep of a hand. And the farmers have no choice but to follow because the entire behavior of society has been programmed by such belief.
We’ve lost our spirit as a species. A graph and a linear formula displayed in a retina screen has become far superior to life in the field.
This is all the distortion of the loss of our humanness. It’s the byproduct of the sterility of our race that has been percolating under the surface for the last 150 years. It has slowly turned us into cold sociopathic murderers. The same goes with animal experiments and vivisection for drug purposes. Because I tell you, once we’re done with the animals, we will turn onto each other, treating our own as culled animals.
The irony in all of this is that this behavior sustains holding onto (unsubstantiated) fear. Holding onto fear robs the vital force of an organism overtime. And the robbing of the vital force renders a state of dis-ease.
This is why we’re going to see this duplicity all around us in the form of heightened prevention measures coupled with an exponential increase of dis-ease in society, as well as enormous expenditure on plans and policies while a much much poorer society.
It’s holding onto fear that makes us sick and robs our wealth.
In this post you claim that “the claim that the Rife microscope could visualize viruses is false and lacks scientific evidence.”
But in your ‘Viral Misconceptions’ article you hailed about the work of Rife, claiming otherwise, and then even quoting Sean Montgomery from the Rife Research Group saying:
"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
… He could sustain the specimen, and by not killing it, he was able to use this method to achieve extreme magnification, extreme resolution, and he was able to see his specimens in a natural state. So he could see viruses going through their processes, which you can see with an optical microscope, but it was his ability to see viruses, which were in a 'living' state, that was his main innovation, and all his other inventions."
So which one is it? And what made you change your stance?
My video "Viral Misconceptions" was produced over four years ago. Before I made the video, I received numerous emails asking me to address Rife and his microscope, which prompted me to include that information in my video about viruses and virus history. However, as my knowledge of viruses expanded over the years, I now recognize that those claims are unfounded. Rife's microscope was an optical microscope that relied on visible light to observe specimens.
Optical microscopes have limitations in terms of their resolution, which restricts their ability to visualize structures smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Viruses are significantly smaller than the wavelength of visible light, making them beyond the resolving power of optical microscopes.
Moreover, a deeper knowledge of microbiology has revealed to me the falsehood and lack of evidence behind such extravagant claims. In retrospect, there is no evidence to support the notion that Rife could observe viruses; the available 'evidence' appeared convincing initially, but it was ultimately conjecture without any substantiation, which has been disseminated as truth.
"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
However, upon scrutinizing this statement, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support this claim. It simply does not exist, and the individual making this statement in the video lacks evidence because there is no mention of Rife observing viruses in the literature. If Rife's optical microscope truly had the capability to visualize viruses, it would surpass all current technologies, including the most advanced electron SEM and TEM microscopy of our day. In reality, this claim is a falsehood.
The second part of his statement contains a partial truth as I do have footage claimed to have been taken with a Rife microscope. However, upon reflection, standard optical microscopy also allows for the examination of specimens without causing harm, enabling the observation of microorganisms and cells going through their life cycles.
Rife's microscope was incapable of visualizing viruses. Once again, there is no evidence to support this claim, and it would have been impossible due to the limitations imposed by the wavelengths of light, as I mentioned. Therefore, when such claims are made and not held under close scrutiny, they can be easily believed.
I’ve read the document you’ve posted and I have some trouble with it.
It’ a good example for what I call ‘technical cunning’: People who are very smart and are trained to be very didactic but have absolutely no openings whatsoever to examine information beyond the confinement of the systems they were inculcated with.
It reminds me of an engineer I used to talk to about perpetual motors who run on no materialistic energy as we know it, and he refuted the concept outright in the name of engineering and physics laws.
And so here. This is the impression I get from Mr. Bracegirdle, which is the predominant paradigm in modern science / masculine based science, is that he’s very good at the reductionist approach, separating the parts and examine them in isolation.
After reading it some potential holes are apparent in his analysis:
1. Whenever someone brings the ‘conspiracy theory’ as a way to explain why people adhere to Rife’s, is already a red flag for me, which showcases mental rigidity. The cancer industry IS a racket beyond any proportions one can imagine. It’s a fact and it’s backed by enormous evidence. Simply alluding it to be a conspiracy is burying one’s head in the sand, or being a silent accomplice to the terror.
(as a side note: the subtext behind ‘conspiracy theory’, as well as ‘pseudoscience ’, is basically saying: “This goes beyond the confinement of the paradigm I have been inculcated with to assume control and safety, and therefore anything that goes beyond it is a threat to my mental security and my position as an authority. Therefore, the best defense is offense: an umbrella terms that induces in the reader who’s the bad guys and who are the good guys in order to reclaim the position of an authoritative figure of influence - i.e. “expertise”.
2. Mr. Bracegirdle examines the microscopes in isolation. By that, he misses the whole that’s greater than the sum of its parts. This reflects the masculine/Newtonian mechanists approach, that can’t see the forest for the trees.
3. It’s true that Royal Rife was a kind of a genius-freak who isolated himself and was really bad at explaining his natural talent. There are many people like that. They simply don’t know how they know, and the fact that they become recluse is to protect themselves from the projection field coming from society to come and explain how they do what they do. That does not negate the fact that his microscopes were more than just a con job or a bag of complexities assembled together for the sake of only impressing others.
4. If Rife was really conning people - what’s the upside for him? Clearly he did not capitalized on his inventions. The guy died penniless., as well as not being wealthy in his lifetime. Why are there testimonials of him sitting still next to his microscopes up to 24-48 hours not moving his body, observing the specimens in them? Does someone who is looking to con others do that?
5. There’s a clear evidence that the authorities did go after Rife as they go after anyone who come up with a solution that is outside the orthodoxy. I recommend reading about Morris Fishbein and the medical racket in America at the time.
6. Why would Sean from the Rife institute claim such a claim. Does he con people too? Does the whole Rife institute, therefore, is one giant con job that has been able to sustain its deceit without detection for years, since its inception?
All these are potential inconsistencies that contaminate the “meticulous” assessment by Mr. Bracegirdle. Please consider reassessing your fatalistic approach by reading this article, which tries to explain why Rife may have gone beyond the limitations of the (Newtonian) optical paradigm.
For the record, I’m not a Royal Rife’s staunch follower and I know very little about the mechanics of microscopy. But I do have a hard time observing others dismantling a man’s reputation, especially when they’re no longer around to defend themselves.
This is quite frustrating to read this article and then read your articles on viruses. They’re virtual opposites. Virus causing cancers? Viruses have got to be the most misunderstood aspect of the human body. Are they uncovering the mechanisms in vitro only? Because as we know from studying microscopes nothing is available today which allows us to view the virus and cell as it is happening in the body in real time.
Scientists Uncover Mechanism Viruses Use to Cause Cancer
Both viral illness and cancer are caused by environment. As for the study in the article you sent, the claim is that the virus opens pathways to increase cancer cell multiplication. The title states viruses cause cancer, which is false. Viruses can appear alongside cancer, but they do not cause cancer directly. That is an important distinction to make.
I've written about this before. In those with highly unbalanced systems, viruses will appear to 'attack' healthy cells if toxic tissues are in the vicinity of those cells. Polio is a good example.
They claim they reduced cancer cells with certain drugs, but what is the cause of the cancer? That never seems to be the issue.
If viruses caused cancer, we'd all have cancer. Herpes virus is already in most all of us. What makes more sense, that viruses appear alongside a disease state while the body progresses toward cancer, or that viruses are the direct cause of the cancer?
Thanks Jeff. I understand and think the idea of viruses as solvents makes sense and can see the deception happening in the main stream as far as how viruses enter the body and how they enter cells, is a lie. It would be nice to see others who have his same ideas. Is there any other scientists that believe something, not exactly the same but similar? I’m trying to figure out where your stream of knowledge from the past comes from and why you are the only one in the world that thinks this way. It must be lonely!
What was exactly happening in that video where we were told it was thousands of viruses bursting out of a cell? I presume it was the process of Lysis you described?
As far as the raw milk the fear mongering campaign exists for sure but there is something making the cows sick and if it’s not contagion then it’s a toxin. What toxin?
It can indeed be lonely because there seems to be a lack of understanding of the concepts and ideas I discuss. Over time, my ideas have evolved and flourished, and I continue to challenge and verify my beliefs. However, some people psychoanalyze my words and hold my past words against me, but knowledge evolves regardless, and a good researcher must adapt his or her view in accordance with new knowledge—otherwise, they are not a good principled researcher.
I have spent nearly five years actively and closely studying nature, more than I have in the past. This has greatly influenced my understanding of the microscopic realm and the functioning of the human body. I have found that understanding the outer world informs one's knowledge of the inner microscopic world that makes up our body.
Further, personal experiences with coronavirus have provided me with insights into viruses and their symptoms and how and why they occur.
One challenge I encounter is that not everyone learns in the same way. I have a unique learning style and rely on contemplation, visualization, and verification to derive information. I have a photographic memory in many respects, and I can holographically visualize in my mind how things would function if I could see them with my own eyes. So, much of what I say is derived from contemplating and visualizing, and then going out and verifying that information. I've found that the complexity of certain topics, especially including biology (an unseen world to most), can make them esoteric and less understood. However, I've actually found that this is common when trying to deeply understand any subject.
In the video I provided in "Viral Misconceptions", that is a phagocytic cell undergoing lysis, apoptosis (cell death). The particles are not viruses but are cell debris being ejected like water from a balloon with a hole in it. My purpose in including that was only to show how viruses would appear when they left the cell via rupture. I had to add an edit to the description of the video clarifying that it is NOT viruses.
Regarding toxins in cows:
The impact of toxins on cows can vary, depending on their treatment, including antibiotic injections and unnatural feed. Additionally, the cyclical nature of biology and its relationship with nature can cause routine sickness in animals, regardless of toxin exposure. The potential is always there.
What you will find, in the future, is that viruses will continue to increase due to the climate being affected by the overall accumulation of pollution in our atmosphere. And this is partly why there has been an increase in viruses recently. All recent studies are confirming this. Weather is the prime driver of the manifestation of viral infections. Both heat and cold drive cellular reactions and increase the likelihood of viral outbreaks in people and animals.
Each time I have developed coronavirus, it was around the same time each year, right before summer, nearly down to the same week. So, weather changes are highly important in understanding viral outbreaks.
In order to be able to answer such a question objectively, it's imperative to take a step back and understand the difference between masculine and feminine based science. They are not related to gender but merely reflecting the dichotomy existing in ourselves and the world. The dichotomy between the consciousness of mind and body; between Yang and Yin.
The mind is very good at analyzing information in a two dimensional format. It works under the juxtaposition mechanism: 110 degrees Fahrenheit means nothing unless it is juxtaposed to something. To a coffee cup, it’s considered ‘cold’. To the human body, as a temperature, it’s considered ‘hot’.
Everything becomes relative.
It’s very hard for the mind to analyze information from a three dimensional medium, even though that’s the medium it basks in. The mind has to freeze everything, break it down to its tiniest parts, isolate them and then take each part and juxtapose it to another in order to formulate a measurement - a conclusion.
If you look at the format human beings work with; a sheet of paper, retina screen - all of them are two dimensional mediums, translating three dimensional information into a length x width format (Y axis juxtaposed to an X axis). And the moment the mind does that, it loses an enormous amount of information.
It’s like physicists who like to illustrate the age of the universe as a straight line, or geneticists, stringing DNA nucleotides in a straight line. But in reality there are no straight lines in the universe and time doesn’t exist, only movement.
But the underlying reality is more a gradient smear, - a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. So is the body.
From the point of view of mind consciousness, or masculine based science, every phenomenon must have a culprit behind it in the form of a singularity and as a linear cause and effect. But in the underlying reality it doesn’t work that way. Every phenomenon is always a result of several elements combined into a cumulative effect.
.
.
Additionally, as a result, we have an abundance of closed systems. These are extensions of how the mind organizes the data in order to reach understanding. All our scientific systems are in essence closed systems.
A closed system is a system that does not exchange energy or matter between it and the environment. In the universe, as well as in nature, there really is no such thing as a closed system. With the possible exception of a few theoretical or hypothetical systems, all systems in the universe are open systems which are systems that constantly interact and exchange energy and/or matter with their environment.
An open system always strives to be in equilibrium with its active environment so that it cannot absorb, store and utilize any excess energy from the environment. The human body, for example, is an open system.
So the problem is that we have turned science into a closed system. The equations we invent to explain the unexplored or the unknown should make "sense" to the rational mind's way of thinking and perceiving.
If it doesn't make sense and fits our closed reality loops, then just cut parts until it happens. You can't imagine how many times this has happened in the history of physics, for example. And today, it happens in every field. Mathematicians even have a name for this process: renormalization.
Over time, we have deconstructed our observed reality into subjects from which we've developed a huge variety of systems and methodologies: medicine, chemistry, physics, astronomy, economics, sociology, virology, environmental sciences, etc.
Indeed, we need to organize our frameworks. However, we are currently on the other side of the efficiency arc. These systems have become extremely complex, flooded with redundant language and immensely rigid. Each can no longer communicate with one another as each has become a world of its own.
So the Germ Theory, as well as myriad of other theories in other sectors of life, fall under the way the mind perceives the world. And because the realm of the mind is the only thing we have conscious access to, they’ve become untenable truths over time.
.
.
So if we go back to your question: from the point of view of masculine-based science, yes, there must be a toxin that is the culprit. But the underlying reality is that what’s perceived to be the culprit is merely an effect. Whether it’s in the form of a bacterium, yeast, fungus or a virus.
Masculine based science doesn’t take into account other elements in the environment, beyond the visible scope. These elements include stress induced by electromagnetic fields, either man made or natural such as: geopathic stress, change in radiation in the ionosphere, effects from coronary solar storms, and the base conditions these animals inhabit (close proximity to one another, confinement in a closed space, etc). All of them have an immense effect on organisms on this planet.
But if we bring information to a virologist that links the increase in viral infections to the reduction of the Earth's magnetic field; or alternatively, if we try to talk to an oncologist about the rise of cancer linking them to the rise in Geopathic stress; or if we talk to a epidemiologist about the changes in solar coronal radiation corresponding to epidemics, none of them would be able to understand what's talked about.
They can only understand what they know from the confinement of the closed framework they’ve assimilated, coupled by the respective language with which they've become identified to formulate their convictions.
And so when an organism is experiencing a state of dis-ease, only then masculine based science comes along, opens up the dead carcass, cuts, smears and takes specimen to the lab and says: “we found the culprit” it’s this and that bacteria or virus. While the reality is that it’s the other way around. These are merely an effect of a distressed body.
.
.
The deleterious effect is that nowadays, instead of understanding the underlying mechanism, we try to adapt society to the rigidity of our closed systems. We try to make everyone see the same thing by repeating linear explanations over and over again until things are assimilated as "truths"; a collective consensus. In turn, it prevents humanity from understanding the interrelatedness that exists in between all planes of existence.
The Germ Theory is convenient because it provides what every simplistic view of a problem seeks before all else: a culprit, an invisible hare for the hounds to chase in their costly research labs, universities, hospitals, and drug factories.
The fact that the hare can never be caught is the perfect guarantee that their race will never finish, their demands for funding will never cease, and their ability to generate profits for the drug and chemical corporations will continue to grow.
This is extremely difficult to uproot because this is more than just a theory, but a belief system that has been substantiated well within our cellular memory. Even when you present the invalidity of it, in which non living entities cannot differentiate between discriminant and non discriminate infection, presenting a step by step detailed explanation in which your audience completely understands, they would still disinfect their life, adhering to Germ Theory measures.
More than that, the entire belief system sustains all masculine based science: measures, methodologies, education, financing, budgets, products which is what sustains the livelihood of millions of people who work in these fields. It’s through the germ theory that it is possible to maintain an iron hand of order and control.
What deeply saddens me is that we’re going to see the systemic exterminations of so many land animals and poultry in the coming years, in the name of science.
We have foot soldiers all around who have been inculcated by unsubstantiated fear as a prime motivator for enforcement of such inhumane measures. The bureaucrats who enjoy their safety nets, pontificate their edicts on the people with their outrageous demands to cull billions of animals in a sweep of a hand. And the farmers have no choice but to follow because the entire behavior of society has been programmed by such belief.
We’ve lost our spirit as a species. A graph and a linear formula displayed in a retina screen has become far superior to life in the field.
This is all the distortion of the loss of our humanness. It’s the byproduct of the sterility of our race that has been percolating under the surface for the last 150 years. It has slowly turned us into cold sociopathic murderers. The same goes with animal experiments and vivisection for drug purposes. Because I tell you, once we’re done with the animals, we will turn onto each other, treating our own as culled animals.
The irony in all of this is that this behavior sustains holding onto (unsubstantiated) fear. Holding onto fear robs the vital force of an organism overtime. And the robbing of the vital force renders a state of dis-ease.
This is why we’re going to see this duplicity all around us in the form of heightened prevention measures coupled with an exponential increase of dis-ease in society, as well as enormous expenditure on plans and policies while a much much poorer society.
It’s holding onto fear that makes us sick and robs our wealth.
In this post you claim that “the claim that the Rife microscope could visualize viruses is false and lacks scientific evidence.”
But in your ‘Viral Misconceptions’ article you hailed about the work of Rife, claiming otherwise, and then even quoting Sean Montgomery from the Rife Research Group saying:
"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
… He could sustain the specimen, and by not killing it, he was able to use this method to achieve extreme magnification, extreme resolution, and he was able to see his specimens in a natural state. So he could see viruses going through their processes, which you can see with an optical microscope, but it was his ability to see viruses, which were in a 'living' state, that was his main innovation, and all his other inventions."
So which one is it? And what made you change your stance?
My video "Viral Misconceptions" was produced over four years ago. Before I made the video, I received numerous emails asking me to address Rife and his microscope, which prompted me to include that information in my video about viruses and virus history. However, as my knowledge of viruses expanded over the years, I now recognize that those claims are unfounded. Rife's microscope was an optical microscope that relied on visible light to observe specimens.
Optical microscopes have limitations in terms of their resolution, which restricts their ability to visualize structures smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Viruses are significantly smaller than the wavelength of visible light, making them beyond the resolving power of optical microscopes.
Moreover, a deeper knowledge of microbiology has revealed to me the falsehood and lack of evidence behind such extravagant claims. In retrospect, there is no evidence to support the notion that Rife could observe viruses; the available 'evidence' appeared convincing initially, but it was ultimately conjecture without any substantiation, which has been disseminated as truth.
"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
However, upon scrutinizing this statement, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support this claim. It simply does not exist, and the individual making this statement in the video lacks evidence because there is no mention of Rife observing viruses in the literature. If Rife's optical microscope truly had the capability to visualize viruses, it would surpass all current technologies, including the most advanced electron SEM and TEM microscopy of our day. In reality, this claim is a falsehood.
The second part of his statement contains a partial truth as I do have footage claimed to have been taken with a Rife microscope. However, upon reflection, standard optical microscopy also allows for the examination of specimens without causing harm, enabling the observation of microorganisms and cells going through their life cycles.
Rife's microscope was incapable of visualizing viruses. Once again, there is no evidence to support this claim, and it would have been impossible due to the limitations imposed by the wavelengths of light, as I mentioned. Therefore, when such claims are made and not held under close scrutiny, they can be easily believed.
Here is a document supporting that Rife and his microscope was not what it was claimed to be (see pgs. 470-472): https://www.quekett.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Bracegirdle-Rife-microscopes.pdf
I’ve read the document you’ve posted and I have some trouble with it.
It’ a good example for what I call ‘technical cunning’: People who are very smart and are trained to be very didactic but have absolutely no openings whatsoever to examine information beyond the confinement of the systems they were inculcated with.
It reminds me of an engineer I used to talk to about perpetual motors who run on no materialistic energy as we know it, and he refuted the concept outright in the name of engineering and physics laws.
And so here. This is the impression I get from Mr. Bracegirdle, which is the predominant paradigm in modern science / masculine based science, is that he’s very good at the reductionist approach, separating the parts and examine them in isolation.
After reading it some potential holes are apparent in his analysis:
1. Whenever someone brings the ‘conspiracy theory’ as a way to explain why people adhere to Rife’s, is already a red flag for me, which showcases mental rigidity. The cancer industry IS a racket beyond any proportions one can imagine. It’s a fact and it’s backed by enormous evidence. Simply alluding it to be a conspiracy is burying one’s head in the sand, or being a silent accomplice to the terror.
(as a side note: the subtext behind ‘conspiracy theory’, as well as ‘pseudoscience ’, is basically saying: “This goes beyond the confinement of the paradigm I have been inculcated with to assume control and safety, and therefore anything that goes beyond it is a threat to my mental security and my position as an authority. Therefore, the best defense is offense: an umbrella terms that induces in the reader who’s the bad guys and who are the good guys in order to reclaim the position of an authoritative figure of influence - i.e. “expertise”.
2. Mr. Bracegirdle examines the microscopes in isolation. By that, he misses the whole that’s greater than the sum of its parts. This reflects the masculine/Newtonian mechanists approach, that can’t see the forest for the trees.
3. It’s true that Royal Rife was a kind of a genius-freak who isolated himself and was really bad at explaining his natural talent. There are many people like that. They simply don’t know how they know, and the fact that they become recluse is to protect themselves from the projection field coming from society to come and explain how they do what they do. That does not negate the fact that his microscopes were more than just a con job or a bag of complexities assembled together for the sake of only impressing others.
4. If Rife was really conning people - what’s the upside for him? Clearly he did not capitalized on his inventions. The guy died penniless., as well as not being wealthy in his lifetime. Why are there testimonials of him sitting still next to his microscopes up to 24-48 hours not moving his body, observing the specimens in them? Does someone who is looking to con others do that?
5. There’s a clear evidence that the authorities did go after Rife as they go after anyone who come up with a solution that is outside the orthodoxy. I recommend reading about Morris Fishbein and the medical racket in America at the time.
6. Why would Sean from the Rife institute claim such a claim. Does he con people too? Does the whole Rife institute, therefore, is one giant con job that has been able to sustain its deceit without detection for years, since its inception?
All these are potential inconsistencies that contaminate the “meticulous” assessment by Mr. Bracegirdle. Please consider reassessing your fatalistic approach by reading this article, which tries to explain why Rife may have gone beyond the limitations of the (Newtonian) optical paradigm.
https://ahealedplanet.net/rife.htm
For the record, I’m not a Royal Rife’s staunch follower and I know very little about the mechanics of microscopy. But I do have a hard time observing others dismantling a man’s reputation, especially when they’re no longer around to defend themselves.
My response to your comment can be read here:
https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/rife-microscope-in-question
This is quite frustrating to read this article and then read your articles on viruses. They’re virtual opposites. Virus causing cancers? Viruses have got to be the most misunderstood aspect of the human body. Are they uncovering the mechanisms in vitro only? Because as we know from studying microscopes nothing is available today which allows us to view the virus and cell as it is happening in the body in real time.
Scientists Uncover Mechanism Viruses Use to Cause Cancer
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/health/scientists-uncover-mechanism-viruses-use-to-cause-cancer-5607511?utm_medium=app&c=share_pos3&pid=iOS_app_share&utm_source=iOS_app_share
Both viral illness and cancer are caused by environment. As for the study in the article you sent, the claim is that the virus opens pathways to increase cancer cell multiplication. The title states viruses cause cancer, which is false. Viruses can appear alongside cancer, but they do not cause cancer directly. That is an important distinction to make.
I've written about this before. In those with highly unbalanced systems, viruses will appear to 'attack' healthy cells if toxic tissues are in the vicinity of those cells. Polio is a good example.
They claim they reduced cancer cells with certain drugs, but what is the cause of the cancer? That never seems to be the issue.
If viruses caused cancer, we'd all have cancer. Herpes virus is already in most all of us. What makes more sense, that viruses appear alongside a disease state while the body progresses toward cancer, or that viruses are the direct cause of the cancer?