The following is one of many examples that I'm collecting of advances in human knowledge and technology that is being systematically suppressed at cost not only to worldwide human happiness, but actually to human life. The relevance to this discussion group's subject matter will, I hope, not be lost on the fact that it does not in fact speak of qi or medical qigong. Rather, its significance relates to all of our efforts to move forward in treating disease and encouraging growth that is systematically repressed by extant institutions.

There is, I find, a prevailing assumption in most people to whom I speak about any idea or technology that, "if its so great, it would be world news, and some company would be making billions by now from bringing it to the masses; ergo, there must be something wrong with it."

It is my intention to collect together at least five significant historical examples of exceptional discoveries that INCLUDE WORKING SAMPLES AND DUPLICABLE RESULTS, that have, nonetheless been ruthlessly suppressed, into a presentation that I intend to start giving for free to venues that will let me. It is my further intention to point out that among the tactical control methods employed are false pretenses on the part of legitimate large companies funding further research on the idea, collecting licensing and control of the technology, claiming to be developing useable models and tools and then quietly shelving the whole thing.

One of the subliminal aspects of the above false assumptions is that, "if so many people know about it, then someone must be doing something about it." It is not necessary to keep information from being published or disseminated in order to "ruthlessly supress it," as I have claimed. As Dr. Steven Greer, an entreprenuer into advanced alternative energy technologies, recently said, "if less than 300 million people know about it, then not enough know about it to keep it from disappearing."

My hope is to achieve, if nothing else, a popular rethinking of the above mentioned assumptions, such that the many stories that are becoming available to us (the first 300 million?) through popular outlets not currently controlled by mass media, such as YouTube, will receive better and fuller, wide-spread consideration, rather than automatic rejection based on false premises. I'm not suggesting that a YouTube video should be accepted on its own merits. Rather, a lack of further personal research, assuming that someone else is doing it, is not only causing these technologies to languish, or the inventors to be marginalized, but is allowing diseased people to die without the aid that is already available to cure them. The same false assumptions are used to persecute those who refuse to open themselves to "scientific inquiry," which historically means entering into the minefield of deconstruction that has been so carefully prepared for anything "new," or "unproven."

I can't at this time prove what many qualified and credible individuals currently assert, which is that these technologies are actually further developed in black operations, usually in order to weaponize, fund, power, or otherwise support an entire shadow world of activity. (The example below, for instance, is being asserted by a leading nuclear physicist to be equally applicable to curing cancer and as a weapon toward biological warfare, and the localized destabilizing of nuclear weapons.) If, however, such an assertion is true, then at best, these advances are being consciously and systematically erased from history, and at worst, they are being transferred and translated into a powerful, extremely elite group of power mongers who have some plan to which we aren't privy. Whomever they are, and whatever their plan, our ignorance of it, and to their methods, makes us unwitting accomplices to it.

Even if the black-op/shadow government redirection is NOT true, then the best that is being done is that we are failing to help the millions of people who are dying every day of "incurable" diseases, the billions of people who are starving, living in poverty and squalor and without apparent hope in their lifetimes of improving their lot, and engaging in unnecessary political intrigue and war based on false premises of what is possible with existing resources. At worst, all this is being done intentionally without an agenda that serves anyone, and therefore merely out of a stringent adherence to dogma, sustaining the status quo, or malicious intent.

A short summary of the following itemized historical example, in case you don't want to read the whole thing, that you can research on your own to your heart's content, illustrates a successfully tested and implemented machine was able to induce 100% remission of cancer in everything from rats to humans, including imbuing in the test subjects an immune resistance to further infection by the same disease and a tendency for their blood, when transfused to an untreated, infected organism, to convey similar immunity for a period of up to 45 days. This machine cured a state official, a woman, in France and thus procured a certain degree of advocacy, along with a war-time association with one who would become a French Prime Minister, which allowed the inventor to obtain a patent. All attempts to publish his results were summarily rejected by every journal and institution to which it was applied. The US Navy conducted its own research into the invention in which it summarily agreed that it was genuine and worthy of further study. Several prominent nuclear physicist have explained the effect generated as being plausible and likely to work. Despite all of this, the invention, being used since at least 1953 on humans until the inventor's death in 1984 is virtually unknown and remains to this day popularly considered to be "debunked." The company that was awarded the opportunity to develop the technology was granted $0.7M back in the 60's, and to this day continues to produce washing machines, refrigerators and other such gadgets with not a word or article in print regarding it's research and development into this device. For a summary of this information, references to all citations regarding this information, a copy of the U. S. Naval research, and a copy of the patent with pictures of the device and its structure, please feel free to explore the following link: http://cheniere.org/priore/index.html.

Following is an itemized history of the aforementioned suppressed technology:

1. Antoine Prioré was born in Italy. He graduated from a small provincial school for electricity in Trieste, Italy and became a radar technician and operator in the Italian Navy. By some manner he became a prisoner of the Germans (apparently after Italy left the war in WW II), and was moved as a forced laborer for the Nazis to the vicinity of the submarine base in Bordeaux, France.
   

2. When it became obvious the Germans were losing the war and were preparing to leave, Prioré realized he would be killed. He approached a French police agent to plead for his life. That police officer worked clandestinely for the French underground. He put Prioré in his car and drove him out of the base to safety. He took Prioré to the nearby province of Dordogne, and introduced him to the 7th Battalion of French underground resistance fighters. Prioré distinguished himself in military operations and was eventually decorated by the French Government.
   

3. Thankful to the French for saving his life, and loyal to his French companions-in-arms, Prioré decided after the war to live in Bordeaux. He was encouraged by his French resistance friends such as Jacques Chaban-Delmas who later rose to become the French Prime Minister.
   

4. For some time Prioré worked as an electrical repairman and did research on exposing plants, etc. to EM radiation.
   

5. Prioré was introduced to Francis Berlureau, former Director of Studies at the School for Veterinary Medicine in Toulouise, and director of the Bordeaux abbatoir at the time. He worked together with Berlureau for some 10 years. He noticed effects on a cancerous bull’s testicles, then began exposing various animals such as cats to the radiations of his early apparatus. The histological work was done by Professor Drieux at the famous Veterinarian School of Maisons-Allfort, near Paris. Drieux wrote a technical report proving that the cat’s cancer, developing before treatment, was benign after treatment. [Important note: according to the US Naval study of this invention, beginning with this early apparatus, and with every further apparatus or version that Prioré, himself, created, none have ever failed to cure the cancer being treated.]
   

6. By 1953 Prioré began treating human patients whose cancers had been judged hopeless. Fournier maintained a huge file of such human cases, but the file later was mysteriously lost. [Notes on the case studies by Fournier, Prioré and others are not lost. The studies were performed, and have been proven, historically, to have been performed. What has been lost, since Prioré's death, is the actual documentation of the studies, the names of humans treated and the day-to-day results of each study. Thus notes that were taken in addition to the studies contain details but not in formalized protocols of the studies themselves.] Nonetheless, Prioré cured cases of a malignant form of Hodgkin’s disease, a case of cancer of the larynx, etc. [Proof not lost.]
   

7. Attempts to interest leading Bordeaux physicists and leading cancer experts in the results of the new approach were laughed off or dismissed with stony silence.
   

8. Prioré’s response was to build a new and more complicated version of his treatment device. Secretly he treated dozens of hopeless cancer patients. At Prioré’s funeral, in 1984, a small platoon of mourners was composed of the now-older people who had been cured of their terrible afflictions by Prioré in the late 1950s. [Please Note: These mourners were interviewed by scientists sympathetic to Prioré and their notes still exist.]
   

9. He was introduced to Professor Tayeau, vice dean of Bordeaux’s Medical Faculty, in latter 1959—early 1960. Prioré was sent to Biraben, head of the Faculty’s Department of Pathological Anatomy, and his assistant, Delmon. To their utter surprise, grafted T-8 tumors in animals subsequently treated with Prioré’s machine were reduced by 60%, a first in the history of cancerology. [Please Note: This 60% reduction represents a limited trial of the device by Tayeau and his assistant, and not the full protocol with which Prioré had so far treated and cured his patients. Thus, the 60% reductions do not deny the above assertion that the device has never failed to cure the cancer. Had the faculty allowed a full demonstration, there would likely have proven to be the same full remission that Prioré had reliably demonstrated thus far. Fuller treatments usually involved repeated exposure over up to 6 months.]
   

10. The mayor of Bordeaux, who later became prime minister of France, was Jacques Chaban-Delmas. He was a fellow resistance fighter and very interested in Prioré’s work. Chaban-Delmas invoked two commissions of Bordeaux and Parisian scientists to study the Biraben-Delmon results in detail. Both commissions rejected Prioré and his machine offhandedly. Biraben and Delmon could not explain the nature of the radiations from Prioré’s machine. A certain professor Lachapele on the first commission was ever an ardent foe of the Prioré method, dismissing the results offhand because the tumors were grafted. His view prevailed. Neither of the commissions interviewed Prioré himself, nor did they run an experiment under their own control.
    

11. Biraben and Delmon continued their experiments, achieving unequivocal and complete success, but because of the political climate in the medical community, did not publish these outstanding results. Biraben, e.g., was told he could either get his degree or publish his research, but not both. Biraben and Delmon finally published a memoir (not a study) in the Revue of Comparative Pathology. But a vicious campaign to destroy the Prioré work and suppress it was already underway.
    

12. Other persons involved with L’affair Prioré were: Professor Guerin, at the cancer institute at Villejuif (equivalent to the American National Cancer Institute in Bathesda, Maryland). Buerin was a co-discoverer of the T-8 tumor. Guerin assigned his colleague Marcel-René Riviére to delve into the entire question. Reviére confirmed the Biraben-Delmon findings. A note was sent for publication in the Proceedings of the French Academy of Science. Reviére also tested the Prioré Ray against other types of tumors, achieving spectacular results.
    

13. Robert Courrier, an eminent endocrinologist still in his 30s, a full professor, and Secrétaire Perpétuel to the Academy of Sciences and head of the biology section (and later to become President of the Academy of Medicine), took up the cudgel to interest high French scientists and scientific agencies. The CNRS director took offense because Prioré was essentially self-taught and not academically credentialed. Others did not understand anything at all about the machine’s operation. To Bordeaux, Courrier sent his trusted assistant Madame Colonge, to repeat Riviére’s experiments under her personal supervision. A physicist sent to examine the machine could make "neither heads nor tails" of its operation. There is little wonder! The Prioré machine involved a dramatic extension to present nonlinear phase conjugate optics (NLO) before NLO was even born! It also involved a dramatic extension to both U(1) electrodynamics and to general relativity. It is also little wonder that Prioré, who discovered the process by intuition and by trial and error, could not explain the operation of his own machine or the mechanism by means of which the cures were accomplished by the "ray" emitted by his device. In fact, the best physicists in France could not comprehend or explain the mechanism whereby such spectacular results were produced by Prioré's machine when used to treat patients with non-ionizing EM radiation from it. [Please note: such explanations have now been presented by capable nuclear physicists who have extensively debunked the U(1) electrodynamics that prevailed at the time. Furthermore, it should be understood that Prioré was extremely, extremely, secretive about his machine's innards, fearing that he would lose control of the patent and its development as a solution. Thus, those who tried to prove or disprove were left to try to understand what was happening, and when they couldn't, simply decided that it wasn't really happening. Secretiveness was interpreted as unwillingness to have a fraud exposed.]
    

14. On May 1, 1965, Robert Courrier formally presented the astounding Prioré results to the assembled French Academy of Science. He was met with stony silence. A leading cancer specialist even stalked out of the assembly hall in full view. No serious discussion among the scientists present at the meeting ever took place.
    

15. Controversy and research continued, in the midst of a raging controversy over "l’Affair Prioré".
    

16. Prioré’s sister in Italy then came down with cancer. Prioré issued an ultimatum to his associates to build the bigger machine he needed, so that he could save his sister’s life. Conventional engineers repeatedly changed Prioré’s design, thinking many components unnecessary, etc. and causing machine failures. Prioré’s sister died (mid-60s) before the machine could be finished because of these unnecessary setbacks. A grief-stricken Prioré went into isolation, unwilling to talk to anyone.
    

17. In early 1967, Professor Raymond Pautrizel entered the picture. At 40, Pautrizel was an eminent parasitologist, on the Faculty of Medicine at Bordeaux, and soon became known worldwide as the "father of parasitological immunity." Pautrizel was awarded the first academic chair in France for immunology, and later headed a special unit on parasitological immunology. [This subject is of particular significance to the study of AIDS, because it deals also with the continual adaptation and genetic change of the invading parasites and agents.] Pautrizel specialized on a particularly lethal parasite, the trypanosome family (which causes sleeping sickness, equine syphilis, and other afflictions). Pautrizel was one of the first scientists to recognize and utilize ambivalence in biological drugs. Pautrizel also noticed that the Prioré ray was not killing the tumor cells, and therefore must be doing something else instead. Pautrizel personally persuaded the distraught Prioré to return to work.
    

18. From 1966 on, many papers were published on the results of applying the Prioré technique to various animals and diseases. The results continued to be revolutionary.
    

19. Another scientist-ally of Prioré’s was Pierette Chateau-Reynaud Duprat. Over the years she worked with the Prioré method, showing that the Prioré ray had no direct effect on the trypanosomes themselves but stimulated and reinforced the defense mechanism of the infested organisms. [No one knew to investigate the regenerative system of the body, poorly understood and using the very kind of infolded EM extension to NLO that Prioré’s ray used.] The ray was shown to cause the rejection of both allografts and isografts, so that the machine affected not only the defense mechanisms of the organism but also the recognition system. The original P-1 (Prioré 1) machine affected cellular defense mechanisms. The second machine, P-2, seemed to act not on the cellular but on the humoral defense mechanisms.
    

20. Prioré himself also cured cases of malaria and also tuberculosis in humans, but apparently did not publish these results.
    

21. Biologist André Lwoff went from an ardent skeptic to an admirer and supporter of Prioré’s work, because of the undisputed results. His favorable opinion of the Prioré results prevailed in a DRME report on the matter, which was classified for some years. A synthesis of the report was published in November 1979 by Herbert Gossot, Secretary General for the French Association for Bioelectromagnetism. Its title was, "A Scientific Balance Sheet on the Prioré Ray." It reports that two physicists who studied the machine in detail favorably correlated the machine’s ray to the results produced, and confirmed the biological efficacy of Prioré’s device. The two physicists were named Bottreau and Berteau. In their note to L’Academie, they were not allowed to even use the names of the laboratories where they worked, which were (1) the CNRS Magnetic Laboratory at Bellevue near Paris, and (2) the Laboratory of Ultra-Hertzian Optics and Talence near Bordeaux. [Please note: the secrecy concerning the lab locations has since been unveiled, but at the time served to cast doubt on the results in scientific circles, since the credibility of the labs could not be investigated. Personally, I ask myself why such detailed efforts should have been employed to prove or disprove the ideas and basic theories while specifically ensuring that positive results would not be respected or followed up on? Who benefits? The answer must be, only those who realize from the research that this gives them something to explore that no one else is investigating.]
    

22. Eventually the French Government backed the construction of a more powerful Prioré device. Professor Courrier had also sent a report on Pautrizel’s behalf to the Nobel Committee in 1979. The M-600 machine was built but its huge tube functioned only about a week before it exploded. Meanwhile Pautrizel, working with a smaller machine, verified the utility of the Prioré Ray on atherosclerosis. Rebuilding the M-600 went slowly. The machine weighed some 50 tons and required 3-1/2 stories to contain it. The pyrex tube was 60 cm in diameter and 6 meters tall. It imploded twice and was replaced each time. The coil which generated the DC-pulsed magnetic field weighed 5.5 tons and had 11 miles of copper wire. During the week or 10 days that the machine was in operation, the results were formidable. The results were presented in notes to the Academy of Sciences by Pautrizel and his team in 1978.
    

23. Pautrizel then came under suppression himself, with funds being pulled, postings being denied, etc. Pautrizel eventually became so emotionally overwrought that he gave up his medical career and retired and gave himself over to alcohol. Every one of the collaborators of Pautrizel saw their careers put in jeopardy, compromised, or broken.
    

24. About this time Prioré's doctoral thesis, backed by both Pautrizel and Nobel Laureate André Lwoff himself, was summarily refused by the President of the University of Bordeaux.
    

25. In 1977 Professor Georges Dubourg urged Prioré to treat human cancer patients and jolt the medical establishment. Pautrizel contacted Courrier, who gave the green light. A few terminal cancer patients whose immune defense systems had been disastrously weakened by chemotherapy or radiation or both, were treated. At least one was totally cured. The others lived, without pain, for much longer than predicted by standard prognosis. The results were submitted to the French Academy of Medicine for publication – and were rejected. [Please note: those who were not "cured," are not proven to have died specifically of the cancer with which they were diagnosed. They lived longer than their prognosis not only with cancer but with previously fried immune systems. All this proves is that the ray may not be able to repair a body that has fried its immune system through chemotherapy or radiation treatment. Once again, the 100% cure rate is not challenged.]
    

26. Pautrizel in final desperation turned to a journalist, Jean-Michel Graille, to tell the story. Graille researched for four years, publishing three long articles in Sud-Ouest France, and finally a book, Dossier Priore: Une Nouvelle Affaire Pasteur. [The Prioré Dossier: A New Pasteur Affair?] De Noel, Paris, 1984. [in French]. [Please note: as of this date, 2/15/08, Amazon.com lists only the French version of this book, never translated into any other language, and that it is unavailable, and the binder is unknown, and therefore there is no estimate on when it will ever be available at Amazon.com. It can, apparently, be acquired through the publisher, Éditions Denoël, on its site http://www.denoel.fr/Denoel/ for 14.3 Euros.]
    

27. From 1965 to 1980, the Prioré project spent about 20 million francs. Results were positively demonstrated, many of them sensational.
    

28. Prioré suffered a debilitating stroke or similar complication in 1981 and died in May 1983 after a lengthy debilitated period.
    

29. Admiral Pierre Emeury, conseiller scientifique de la presidence, discovered L’Affaire Prioré. His inquest led him to conclude that the Prioré discovery was the most important medical discovery of the entire century.
    

30. The suppression of such a revolutionary discovery, even though its technical methodology was not understood, remains one of the heinous examples of scientific dogma blocking highly innovative research and results. Untold millions of human lives would have been saved had science and government acted along scientific lines.

The further development of Prioré's invention was, according to the 1978 U.S. Naval study, being done under the auspices of an organization set up for the purpose: the Société d'Exploitation du rayonnement Antoine Prioré (SERAP) which brings Prioré into formal relationship with a company, moteurs Leroy Sommer of Angoulême.  This company has been the recipient of a $0.7 million contract from the DGRST (Délégation Générale à la Recherche Scientifique et Technique) for the construction of a third machine of greatly increased output. Prioré has been reported (Rorvik, D. M.., 1975. Les Français ont-ils un traitement contre le cancer ?  Translation by ANB of the article in Esquire, July) to have predicted that the cost would more likely to be $3 million.  No doubt other sources of funding were available.  In return for so much support Prioré promised a much bigger and better machine that will generate a more intense field of much larger cross section than those with which the results already reported were obtained.  So, one can guess, larger groups of small animals will be irradiated simultaneously for shorter periods than formerly and the rate of accumulation of data will increase - if, that is, the biological measurements can keep pace.  Perhaps too, by the same token, small groups of large animals will be treated, with the single sick human as the ultimate target of the entire endeavor.

There were rumors of serious technical difficulties such as might have been anticipated in scaling up such a complicated device.  It was said to be proving difficult, for instance, to construct a pyrex container able to cope with the very high energy flux in the plasma.

Is the new machine really needed?  At the technical level the answer is almost certainly "no".  Evidently technical considerations are overruled by others, no doubt of personal, political, and even patriotic nature.

The whole operation takes on a farcical aspect when one considers that the only genuine need in the present state of affairs is to get independent confirmation, or refutation, of results already obtained with equipment that was clearly adequate for the original experiments.  The funds now made available would suffice for the building of several replicas of the mark 2 machine.  These, placed in selected centers of research, could be used by independent teams for a critical repetition and extension of earlier findings.  The success or otherwise of the time-consuming attempt to build a giant machine is largely irrelevant to the central doubts that persist as to the claims made for the Prioré radiation, and this expensive diversion of effort betrays a certain recklessness which ill serves the quest for a solution to the mystery surrounding "l'affaire Prioré ".

SERAP, the company whose moniker bears his name encoded into the acronym, has no mention of Prioré on its current web site. Leroy Somer, the parent company, is a world leader in the field of energy production, with an extensive range of low and medium-voltage alternators. It distributes to the U.S. through US Motors, a subdivision of Emerson. It's websites also make not one mention of Prioré  or any cancer-curing machine even in research and development.

In summary, nothing whatsoever is being done to bring a cancer- and other disease-treating device to the many patients around the world currently dying of it. Do you know someone suffering from cancer? Have you ever aided, donated to, or taken part in fund-raising for cancer research? What is it, do you think, that has been done with that money?

Thank you for your time,

Lihai
I Qi You
Bay Area, CA
www.IQiYou.com
iqiyou@yahoo.com