Friday, March 13, 2009

Bob Beck Protocol Scares Patients into Paying!

Another unknown member on the list of "Snake-oil" Salesmen. Dr. Bob Beck (Physics Doctorate from Univ Southern Cali).

His claim to fame is the "Bob Beck Protocol" which has four easy steps to curing one's body of most forms of Cancer, the HIV virus, and many other notable aliments. First and foremost, the major principle behind this famous protocol is that "electrifying the blood" neutralizes the the virus particles by preventing them from adhering to the T-cell surface. This allows the expulsion of virus particles through the normal course of bodily excrement. No details needed at this point.

The second stage involves magnets. Pulsed magnetic fields are applied to "draw out" pathogens tucked away in regions with less circulation that aren't affected by the blood electrification. This added stage ensure the patient will completely rid the body of pathogens.

Ionic/colloidal silver is the third branch in the protocol. Colloidal silver is made using 99.99% pure silver wires, distilled water and an electrical circuit. Its a very simple process that you can do at home with the right equipment. The Colloidal silver was supposedly a great replacement for antibiotics in the past and has been used anecdotally since the 1930's. This would maintain your general health and prevent future infections.

The last step is fairly critical... during the expulsion process, the body will become over-ridden with the dying and dead pathogenic material. The previous three steps are so efficient that your body may not be able to keep up with kill counts! To aid in the destruction, the Beck Protocol has "Freshly Ozonated Water" which, like the silver, is easy to make at home with the right equipment. The Ozone in the water will accelerate the destruction of foreign materials and clench a healthy finish to the Bob Beck Protocol.

With these four steps, most-if not all-aliments, including HIV and Cancer can be cured from the comfort of your home for a small investment in equipment. So simple, its amazing the entire medical field isn't taking the hint.... Hahahahahahah.....




Now some downfalls of Dr. Bob Beck. I read through a biography of Dr. Bob, which written by Jane Stilwell, and I couldn't help but notice how outrageous his claims are. I particularly liked his "boosting IQ" by taking Glutamine (a common amino acid, which btw has many benefits but it won't raise your IQ) and his invention of the first camera flash unit (actual inventor is Dr. H.E. Edgerton of MIT whom died in 1990).

I state strongly that all of Bob Beck's work involving the study of disease has been unfounded, undocumented, and unvalidated in every aspect. Documentation is anecdotal at best and false at its worse. He makes use of "wives tales" such as the silver suspension, which was used in the early 1900's, but was also followed by medical studies to show the effects. The results showed that silver suspension have no beneficial effects and cannot be used as an antibiotic. In actuality, high doses of silver can result in illness (Argyria). My next comment concerns ozone. Ozone is a free radical and assuming you can create "ozonated" water DO NOT DRINK IT! Ozone interacting with normal tissue is damaging and a great deal of work has shown that ground level ozone is an increasing danger in our cities. The effects of ozone on healthy individuals is well documented, reproducible, validated by a plethora of scientific fields. Its bad for you! ALWAYS!

The blood work... completely unfounded. There are no publications of this technique to work against any pathogen in any peer-review science journal. Check out this guys response (Dr. Frascino).

Please... don't be fooled. This is posted to counteract some of the misinformed people which have been tricked by the hundreds of sites claiming fame to the "Bob Beck Protocol".

20 comments:

  1. I would like to know what sources you have that "Ozone interacting with normal tissue is damaging". I understand what is called "ground level ozone" is bad. Ozone is also used to purify drinking water and to maintain water in pools and spas. I am not sure but by my research i would make a guess that this kind of ozone is more like that 30 miles up referenced in the article you have linked is "good ozone" and not the same nature as grown level. Any sources you can send my way would be appreciated. All the stuff i find is always from an alternative practitioner on the net. Who i believe to be biased and am trying to find info on the other side. Thanks. Greydog@bigfoot.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Frascino unfortunatly does nothing other than make Dr. Frascino sound like an ass.

    I'd like to see Becks Zapper (supposedly based on Dr Stephen Kaalis patent) debunked properly.
    I havent see this yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My feelings are shared with Dr. Franscino, which are feelings of frustration with communities of persons that are simply closed to all evidence outside their own belief. That closed mind completely disconnects the person from any other input and is terribly frustrating, especially if the information is incomplete or inherently incorrect. While his wording was harsh and possibly exaggerated, I empathize with Dr Franscino.

    Secondly, the effects of electrical current are very well characterized on bacteria and eukaryotes as far as before the 70's. (http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=79387)(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WM8-4TWNFW3-8&_user=75682&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1088468054&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000006078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=75682&md5=7d14624a16bf2bdf772d3ecf713d611d).

    I don't think there will ever be what you would call a 'proper debunking' because there is no published evidence to debunk. Point blank... this electrical current stuff was already studied and the parts that are true, can't be applied to a human body externally. And it DOES effect the other cells of the body. Although, the procedures by Beck and Kaali on a living human wouldn't kill anything, much less an entire system of viruses and bacteria (need I remind people that some bacteria are NECESSARY to live? and killing them is a BAD thing?).

    The "patent" was never accepted by any country, especially the US, and all links to the "patent" are dead end links or pages not found. Why? B/c it doesn't exist. Why? B/c there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. It would be easy to debunk his ideas if there was ever data to show that it actually existed.

    Science works like this, you have a problem or theory. You aim to prove said hypothesis or theory by gathering evidence and carrying out experiments. Simply saying something doesn't make it true. And lying about it doesn't work either. Neither of these knuckleheads (Kalli or Beck) have actually been published in Journals outside their own creation.

    If I print a flier that says dogs can talk, but only at night and only if you believe... that doesn't count as a peer-reviewed publication and it certainly doesn't make it true. Closed minds are generally more dangerous that open ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. so are u saying..this process does not work to destroy diseases...as said?..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let me correct you Mr. Biochemist, the so called second step to this Protocol doesn't have to do with magnets. Its a pulsed magnetic field that produces electric current (eddie currnet). Maybe you should take some physics classes before you are so quick to judge other scientist research. Also you say that silver and O3 have no effect or damaging effects on human cells. Then why is there a treatment for HIV/AIDS called Tetrasilver Tetroxide that supposedly cures AIDS that consist of Silver crystals(Colloidal Silver) and O4 which is Ozone? Pat# 5676977 inventor:Marvin S. Antelman,Rehovot, Isreal. I think Dr. Beck was a good person. He might have not have perfected this protocol, but he let the people aware of it and the science behind it. Also letting people aware of the New World Order and their plans to kill off most of the worlds population. I think your need to watch some videos like "The Obama Deception." let me know your opinion of this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. another thing... this system is not to kill anything! it is to attenuate, neutralize and or inhibit it ability to attach to healthy cells. yo want proof...Science New biomedicine 04/30/1991, Longevity 12/1992 pg.14, Houston Post, 03/20/1991 A10 Your Health/Medicine. i remember hearing about this on the new in 1991 it was a about a 15 second clip of the Lymann discovery

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes fine, there are no magnets. I'll edit my statement. I do want to point out that I said, "The second stage involves magnets. Pulsed magnetic fields are applied to 'draw out' pathogens", where I clearly state magnetic fields. And I have taken physics courses, thank you for suggesting them.

    However, the question returns to biology and biochemistry. Magnetic fields still are not effective forms of treatment to move biological material within the body. In many cases you can read peer-revieved publications such as this one from "American Scientific" journal http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-bead-on-disease.

    The magnetic fields are only helpful when outside materials, which include biologically modified, antibody coated particles are used. This kind of nanotechnology is far from what the Beck protocol is describing. Mainly, nanotechnology has been show to work in numerous methodologies in many laboratories across the globe and published in peer-reviewed journals after being scrutinized by reputable and well-supported science and scientists. None of which exists for this step of the Beck protocol. As I've said before, you can find many documents supporting Beck's protocol, but none have been reviewed by scientists within the respective field and non have been published in peer-reviewed journals. All are written outside of science and typically by the people selling the products, creating a clear conflict of interest.

    As for the Tetrasilver tetroxide... it is a treatment for AIDS/HIV with the same effectiveness and proven quality of peanut butter. A patent from 1997, which has no scientific references, has never been utilized by any medical or pharmaceutical company. Mainly because there is no evidence that it works except anecdotal. The US Patent office does not check the validity of medical claims. It serves only to patent the idea of using the chemical for a specific health issue. The author has no laboratory background and has not written any publications on this topic nor has he submitted to AIDS/HIV organizations. No hospital, clinic, or research department is utilizing this substance. Maybe its a hidden wonder?

    Maybe not... the whole principle again relies on work that silver kills non-human tissue. In fact, high doses are required to damage bacteria and at that level, it damages human tissue as well. Therefore, ingesting the material does not target the problem, it just kills, which includes your healthy and non-infected tissue.

    As for conspiracy theorists, they hold a warm place in my heart. I too despise corporations, I believe that change is quickly possible in our world and often held back by high ranking officers of the law and gov't, I feel that much of world politics is more of a puppet show than anything else. But I must say that if Bob Beck's only defense is that he is a preaching conspiracy theorist than I can do without his misguided and dubious attempts to 'cure' people.

    The world has plenty of very open and very loud people to discuss NWO and Obama and Bush for that matter. I don't need to here it from the same person that bases curing solutions on unproven logic. Moreover, when I here these statements in tandem, it weakens anything he discusses past his unproven protocol.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Er, links to patents dead ? - I dont think so ....

    US Patent office link...

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5139684.PN.&OS=PN/5139684&RS=PN/5139684


    Or from google patent search.

    http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=lz4iAAAAEBAJ&dq=5139684


    If you're gonna debunk something, at least dont just make stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The US Patent office does not check the validity of medical claims. It serves only to patent the idea of using the chemical for a specific health issue. The author has no laboratory background and has not written any publications on this topic"

    That's what I said about the Tetrasilver. I guessing much of the same applies to your two suggested patents. I'll read them and write about it later. I'm not "making stuff up". The US Patent Office is not in the business of debunking medical garbage. That's where you get garbage patents like the ones you've linked.

    Where's the actual people behind these "Anonymous" statements? Makes me think its one person that has no credibility repeatedly asking questions. Don't worry, I'm always happy to reply.

    ReplyDelete
  10. These are the patents you specifically (i'm assuming it was you, if not, i apologise) said did not exist.

    These are the patents by granted to "legitimate" researchers in this area.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think its quite bold to assume that Kaali is a knucklehead ( you say so above ).

    That rather proves to me that you're making an awful lot of assumptions about stuff you probably haven't actually really looked into that deeply.

    Still no biggie. Makes no difference to me what you're beliefs are.

    You know, he might be a knucklehead, but he seems to be a knucklehead with qualifications.

    http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/faculty/profile.asp?id=5296

    ReplyDelete
  12. What i'd really like to see is someone demonstrably debunk electromedicine. All that ever seems to happen is that someone lobs a lazy accusation that someone is a fraud and then, quite often will start talking about the "frauds" claims but make obvious mistakes as to what they are. This is a human trait for sure, We all have our areas of expertise and we all quite often assume that anyone with a contrary opinion must be wrong.

    I've seen people debunk Rick Simpson and his claims for THC oil and then seen pharma companies invest in similar protocols ( sativex ) etc.

    When Marshall and Warren discovered helicobactor pylori the medical establishment were the first to laugh, shout "Heretic" etc. Its not that uncommon.

    Does this prove that Beck electrification devices work or not ? - no, of course not. But then no one in the medical establishment appears to be too worried about doing so either.

    What impressed me about Beck was that he gave the plans away from the start and said, go build your own (and many did). This, plus the patents discussed is quite compelling to the layman.

    Should we automatically assume that he's a nut when the guys that bought us "Poison Slash and Burn" cancer fighting techniques (and its massive success in the last 50 years) tell us he is ? - sorry guys, but you've gotta work harder to win back respect.

    Its hardly likely that people look for alternatives when all we're offered is medical experimentation with little evidence of success (because thats exactly what chemo is), sickness and likely death.

    I realise how annoying it is to be confronted with these attitudes (of us stupid laymen questioning the mighty medical experts), but unless "traditional cancer medicine" can offer anything new, then you really cant be surprised that we do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ok, my last post on this. Its not my intention to get into a fight, just find a cure that actually works.

    You say..

    "My feelings are shared with Dr. Franscino, which are feelings of frustration with communities of persons that are simply closed to all evidence outside their own belief."

    and yet don't see the irony in that statement.
    You automatically assume (as does he) that anyone that questions Dr Franscino is closed to all evidence, but somehow he doesn't demonstrate that attitude (which he does but the bucketload).

    From my perspective, i can easily see that both sides could fall into this category.

    Ignoring silver/ozone etc - and sticking with electromedicine, it looks like your only initial problem with Bob Beck seems to be that theres a company that he didn't own, making these devices (that he freely gives away plans to and encourages people to make their own) that he loosely endorses (the company) but doesn't appear to get any money from ?

    Who says science is dead eh ?

    I can well believe your statement that some bacteria is vital for life ("gut flora" etc ?) . But can you state what bacteria in the "general bloodstream" is benficial ?


    I'm not trying to win any arguments (you're the expert in this field, i am not) but i'd be genuinely interested to know.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yep... definitely one person repeatedly posting.

    The links that were on the site were dead when I checked them. ANd my looking didn't uncover them but my statement still stands. Patents are granted but it does not mean it is from "legitimate researchers in this area"... it means they filed the paperwork properly.

    Dr. Steven Kaali is in Obstetrics & Gynecology and used this work in IUDs. And I know quite a large number of "knuckleheads" that hold degrees of varying grandeur. They are still annoying and incorrect about many beliefs.

    Rich is another joke. THC has been used and studied for quite a long time before Rick bumped his head and hit the bong. Sativex is mainly used to alliveiate pain, something people has been using THC and marijuana for in many places for a long time as well. Its nothing new. Rick's claims that is cures illnesses is new, and very ignorant. Sativex didn't steal his idea in any way, shape, or form.

    Marshall and Warren discovered a bacterium in a rare location, yes, but how called them heretics? It was a discovery that needed to be validated. When it was validated, they got the credit they deserved. This happens all the time. That's science and research. Bob Beck's protocol lacks the validation.

    And you are very right, Bob's protocol's were approachable to the common person w/out a college education. But that doesn't make them correct. And his increased notoriety brought advertising endorsements, lecture requests, and thank you gifts across the globe. He didn't need a product, he replied on gullibility. Compelled laymen do not mean its true.
    And here's a big FU for such an ignorant comment about cancer therapy. You are beyond misguided. Poison, slash, burn, as you put it has made great improvements in the outcome, the quality of life, and the length of life of patients. Work continues to evaluate what pathways and mechanisms are at work in many still evolving cancer systems. There is no easy answer or cure-all remedy. If you want to believe that there is, then make yourself electric water and die on Bob's protocol. Or maybe you'll turn to modern medicine and its awesomeness to treat your ailment based on clinical trials, intense experimentation, and verification in multiple nations.

    I started this post because it bothered me that such obvious (and I still believe its obvious) lack of scientific merit was reaching people in a time of need and taking advantage of them. I suspect you are one of the hounds out for people to believe in this ridiculousness.

    You have absolutely no clue as to the constant evolution of cancer, the growing knowledge of its mechanism, or the great improvements in treatment. In fact, I hope you get some form of cancer just so that you will know that it is current medicine and not Bob Beck's protocol that will save you.

    I work daily to convey messages to people without alienating them so that they don't feel that they need to turn to this idiocy. Dr Fanscino and I probably have similar comments for you. We are not closed-minded... we just haven't been given anything validate-able or reputable. This isn't a mystical statement. Most scientists want evidence that is reproducible and publishable in peer-reviewed journals and hopefully across the globe. But just starting with reproducibility by other labs would be a great start. There is no hypocrisy in my statement. I am very open.

    Lastly, I don't care an iota about who sells or buys equipment. I care about people. I care about people that are hurting and the people that try to take advantage of them by offering hope in exchange for notoriety and possible future fortune. So Bob's business ventures were not my initial, nor are they my present, concern.

    Its free to sign up for a Google account or simply a Blogspot account. Why not do it today? When you write in and pretend to be a different person you could simply make a new account each time. It would give all those voices in your head nice names.

    ReplyDelete
  15. When someone writes to me and says that Bob's protocol works, I have pointed out the flaws and awaited evidence. When evidence comes, it is related but doesn't support the actual statement the poster is claiming. Then I get the loads of "why don't you prove it" kind of messages.

    It has been proven... repeatedly. And adamant supporters of this insanity will blind their eyes at any cost and look for something, anything, that faintly supports their idea at which point they will scream and shout how they have legitimate science to support them.

    Well, you don't. You really really don't. And comments that say chemotherapy is stupid and weed cures illnesses show me that there is no reason behind their thought. I cannot argue or debate with a person like that... with limitless questions on topics that have been routinely disproved. The stalling and backpedaling that science has to do to satisfy some people is staggering. And I guess I should admit that it is more than I can handle.

    I am correct. I stand by the statement that the Bob Beck Protocol is ridiculous, start to finish. But I don't have the time, patience, or desire to research each inane question. Some of the questions are insightful and show curiosity. Most are not and I apologize that I just can't answer everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You, "Biochemist," are a lazy slanderer.

    Anyone can find Robert C. Beck's photoflash patent in the database at http://www.google.com/patents

    Patent number: 2498640
    Filing date: Aug 7, 1948
    Issue date: Feb 28, 1950

    So now you have two clear strikes against you - maliciously slandering both Bob Beck and Dr. Steven Kaali.

    Please publish a retraction of your baseless slander, and go back to minding your own knitting before your other lies are exposed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Creator", no profile found (I don't have proof but I have reason to believe its the same person that keeps writing in with false info).

    You are wrong.
    Bob Beck's patent is present, but he is not the inventor. Beck's patent filed in 1948 does specifically mention photography. However, 13 years earlier HE Edgerton filed patent 2186013 in 1935 which is the actual device for the flash unit. In fact, HE Edgerton continued to improve on the unit in the 70's and later, including more power, faster recharges, underwater abilities, and so. Other honest scientists have references HE Edgerton's work.

    So, the recap,
    Beck
    Filed August 7th 1948
    Issued February 28th 1950


    Edgerton
    Filed July 29th 1935
    Issued August 16th 1949

    I have no strikes against me, only angry people grabbing at straws. There's no slander, and its certainly not baseless. I do not knit, but I've been told its quite therapeutic for anger issues. Perhaps we could go learn together, as you seem like a very upset person.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Biochemist,

    Thank you very much for the in-site on this information. I usually try to avoid commenting on internet blogs however this one does affect me in a more personal way. I am HIV positive and have a close friend who is HIV positive as well who told me about the website thebody.com (Dr. Frascino related info). I did see a lot of information in regards to Beck's work and I was quite amused at first. Plenty of people ask about the Beck protocol on the site and Frascino's immediate response is slander towards the person asking... As a human who is inquisitive about any possible option to relieve them of this disease, its only natural to want to know more. After reading his responses to people in regards to this and the way they respond to him, it shot down my thoughts of finally asking him for his opinion in regards to the Beck protocol.

    I wasn't sure whether to believe this device as truth and my friend was diagnosed in 2007 (at the age of 19 from countless unprotected sex partners in which he cant even account) he tried to beck protocol system when his cd4 count was at 480 and viral load was near 100000. He told me when he went pack in 3 months for his follow up his cd4 count was at 570 and his viral load decreased to 65000. He told his doctors that he had only been taking echinacea and had been working out and he changed his diet. I told him I just believed it was the power of prayer.

    I was diagnosed on January 14th this year (compliments of once getting tested with my ex partner and then later finding out that he had been cheating and having unprotected sex, in which I take the blame for even making the decision to also have unprotected sex as an option), and unlike him, I didn't use the Beck theory as I have heard yes it works stories (in which anyone could've created) and no it doesnt work stories (in which anyone couldve created) so I decided to put my fate in "good ole' medication". I have been being treated at the University of Maryland School of Medicine for a clinical trial that tests the affects of starting antiretroviral treatment at a earlier time on young adults (18-24, ages where the body is still growing). When I started my medication (June 2010), my cd4 was at 507 and my viral load was at 74000 and I was recovering from a cold and an ear infection. As of the end of October, I have been undetectable (in case someone reads this and does not know, this means less than 1,000 copies/ml of HIV plasma) and my cd4 count was 773. I haven't missed a beat on taking my medication and my doctors are considering reducing my medication to see its affect on me (call me a guinea pig), but my doctor did mention the beck theory as a joke, which brought it back to my mind and caused me to continuously research its affects on people. I've read on various sites that the silver has plenty of benefits (good ole' marketing) and I've also read that it has no good affect that has been scientifically proven (good ole government http://nccam.nih.gov/health/silver/). I must say that I am a bit confused as to how to look at this seeing the amount of money invested in pharmaceutical companies, medical research studies and the governments to find a "cure". From a more medically inclined point of view ( I'm a mass communications major with very little interest in medicine until my own diagnosis), do you personally believe in the conspiracy theory that this and related diseases were created from the government for population reduction and to create revenue with the pharmaceutical companies, and with HIV's level of intelligence and ability to mutate so swiftly, would you believe it would be safe to say that within the next decade, science would be able to possible find a cure, versus a suppression of HIV?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Jarrell I personally don't believe that the drug industry in its entirety has conspired with gov't to prevent cures or to implement disease. I do believe large corporations, including pharmaceuticals, get huge breaks in national and international regulations, taxes, securities, and support. I also believe that actually curing a disease is not top priority for a corporation hired to produce drugs to treat the disease.

    All that said, scientists are awesome and hard at work picking up the slack where corporations stop. I have several friends in different corners of the US and aboard working on specific inhibitors and viral replication drugs for HIV. From personal discussion and listening to news events, I would predict there will NOT BE A CURE in the next decade. That is asking for a HUGE leap of personalized healthcare. On an individual scale the rate of mutation it difficult enough. To try and eradicate the mutating virus from ~33 million people is a lot to ask.

    What is reasonable, in my opinion, is the development of effective preventive medication, which has already made a debut (look up Truvada). Suppressing HIV and curtailing its existence should lower HIV to a point of near extinction. And if the Catholic church ever gets its head out of its ass and agrees that condoms are OK, it may very well happen in the next decade.

    My opinions may not be reassuring to already infected people, but that's the way I see it. I feel that HIV will always exist as will cancer. The difference is that HIV, if left un-transmitted, will not spontaneously occur in a new individual.

    My best wishes on your health and continued success in thwarting virus numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Best site about silver (run by 3 PHD's):

    http://www.silver-colloids.com/

    Silver sulfadiazine doesn't work well without the silver:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_sulfadiazine

    Also to treat infants at birth prophylactically:

    http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study19.asp

    Also used in wound dressings:

    http://www.silverlon.com/wound.htm

    :-)

    ReplyDelete