It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do cells mutate into cancer cells?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

I don't know if you're a freshman in molecular biology, or just unaware of the literature.

We have been very careful about out testing, only ourselves and very close friends and family.

One lung cancer with large tumors- reversed out in three weeks.

One leukemia - reversed out in four weeks.

One macular degeneration with constant retina detachment - reversed out in ten days.

One elderly crushed elbow, bone too soft to hold screws and were sewn together - completely healed in two weeks.

One torn ligament - completely healed in ten days.

The list goes on and on. Never, ever get sick with any flu, common cold, or virus for years.

Now you suggest that we don't know what the hell we're talking about?

I wipe my butt with your credentials.

Because for all the good they're doing you, they're worthless.

It's not what you don't know that's causing you problems - it's what you know that's erroneous.

Just for practice, we violated the second law of thermodynamics conclusively, had the results tested and verified by a large, forensic engineering testing facility that universities use, and we're busy now transmutating elements.

We're actually DOING things with our knowledge.

Take a seat.




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for any sort of documentation or publications, Dooper, especially since you "violated the second law of thermodynamics".

Put up or shut up. It's that simple. I can support my argument with both basic science research and clinical practice.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
A very interesting thread thus far.

Increasingly I am inclined toward the work of Tullio Simoncini, MD (in Italy) who posits that cancer is simply a fungus. If one were to surgically 'liberate' the tumour or mass from surrounding healthy tissue and then inject it with something incredibly simple, then the cancer is defeated.

Tullio Simoncini's Website

When first I was exposed to his ideas, I rejected them too swiftly. I am now reappraising his work and believe his conclusions should be widely investigated.

We also must be honest and acknowledge that cancer is "Big Business" in the States and elsewhere, and there is no desire at the top to find a cure ... the goal is to milk the sick of every penny they have left and to get as much money as possible from insurance etc. Also, many cancers have the SB-40 virus in extraordinary amounts and as we all know SB-40 virus is what you actually got with the Polio vaccines and absolutely nothing else that was salutary.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

No. I'm not proving ****.

I have in my possession the world's first "perfect" electret. It's been putting out steady voltage for years, and looks like it will continue. You see, we were doing nanocarbon tube research long before Dr. Chung.

We have known about carbon based negative resistors for years, and used them to create this electret.

We spent lots and lots of money for our certification of our violation of the second law of thermodynamics. We required the laboratory sign a very strict non-disclosure agreement.

The first time, they certified that our output exceeded total input by a factor of 2.1. That's 2.1 times unity of wattage.

Six months later, they certified an 8.2 times unity of wattage.

Of three men who worked together initially at MIT, and later on other independent projects, all three are dead. One poisoned, one killed in a "burglary" of an unoccupied, unfurnished home a week before his major announcement, and another on his way to sign the European licensing agreement for yet another major technology.

The secondary lab behind his home was immediately raided and all field notes, his safe, computer, and other electrets were removed from the lab by a foreign oil company, in conjunction with his son. We still maintain the primary which they were unaware of.

I'm not telling you squat. And we're not releasing that data since it seems to be a very unhealthy thing to do.

I could give a rat's ass if you believe a word I say.

You've already shown me that your working knowledge of the subject matter falls very short, and I'm not getting paid to educate you.

You want the research material on what I stipulated?

It's there, and all you have to do is dig it out. You won't find much of this in your textbooks, but the material is published, a bit difficult to find at times, but you're such a smart guy - you can do just like we did - dig it out.

You remind me of our electrical engineeringi departments. They're too lazy to walk across campus, and find out what physics now allows.

Same thing with biophysics. What's the connection between these apparently dissimilar technologies?

They aren't that dissimilar. Often when you open one door of discovery, instead of that one discovery behind the door, there's an entire hallway of other doors there just for the opening.

These men in our group are known around the world. And we mind our own business.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
A very interesting thread thus far.

Increasingly I am inclined toward the work of Tullio Simoncini, MD (in Italy) who posits that cancer is simply a fungus. If one were to surgically 'liberate' the tumour or mass from surrounding healthy tissue and then inject it with something incredibly simple, then the cancer is defeated.

Tullio Simoncini's Website

When first I was exposed to his ideas, I rejected them too swiftly. I am now reappraising his work and believe his conclusions should be widely investigated.

We also must be honest and acknowledge that cancer is "Big Business" in the States and elsewhere, and there is no desire at the top to find a cure ... the goal is to milk the sick of every penny they have left and to get as much money as possible from insurance etc. Also, many cancers have the SB-40 virus in extraordinary amounts and as we all know SB-40 virus is what you actually got with the Polio vaccines and absolutely nothing else that was salutary.


Fungal cells have a distinct morphology, especially when compared to mammalian tissue, namely, they cell walls, chitin, and grow as hypae. This would, in no way, be confused with any cellular mass of the human body, especially after biopsy. In fact, this is similar to practical exam I faced back in college microbiology. We were given slides of unknowns and had to use molecular/microbiological characteristics to identify what the sample was. Not even a college student could confuse a fungus with a human cell. Cancers are entirely mammalian, eukaryotic cells in nature, just with haywire gene expression.

[edit on 10/10/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for proof of anything you've claimed, Dooper.

Documentation of your figures?

Names of these "murdered" researchers from MIT?

Schematics of the system you're using?

Patient files showing treatment and subsequent improvement (with personal info removed, obviously)?

An example of which material I "don't understand" ?

Any supported contradiction to the facts I've posted?

Anything at all, really, would be great. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, to paraphrase the quote. In fact, it's against the ATS terms and conditons to purposely post hoaxes. Up to this point, your posts seem to be nothing but wishful thinking masquerading as fact in your own fanciful imagination. So, it would be wise of you to post SOME sort of proof.

[edit on 10/10/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

The OP asked a question.

I tried to answer it.

I didn't get into the ability of this technology to stimulate cellular dedifferentiation.

[To the OP: For example, when a bone breaks, blood rushes to the area, and this creates swelling. Within hours, you'll see that some of the blood cells will start to lose their hemoglobin, and start to grow a nucleus.

As days go by, these blood cells will dedifferentiate into cartilage cells.

But that's not what's needed. Bone cells are needed.

So then the cartilage cells will dedifferentiate yet once again, into bone cells. The side of the break closest to the heart is the electrical positive side.

The side of the break closest to the extremity side is the negative side, and is measureable.

The same thing occurs with these cancer cells. They dedifferentiate into other normal cells or they self-destruct, depending on the immediate need.

Biophysics. Not medicine.]

Vne, you wanted to show how smart you are.

Fine.

You're smart.

Let's see you do something with it.

We're done here.

Lesson is over.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   


[To the OP: For example, when a bone breaks, blood rushes to the area, and this creates swelling. Within hours, you'll see that some of the blood cells will start to lose their hemoglobin, and start to grow a nucleus.

As days go by, these blood cells will dedifferentiate into cartilage cells.

But that's not what's needed. Bone cells are needed.

So then the cartilage cells will dedifferentiate yet once again, into bone cells. The side of the break closest to the heart is the electrical positive side.

The side of the break closest to the extremity side is the negative side, and is measureable.


Holy HELL that is incorrect! Erythrocytes NEVER grow a nucleus, and absolutely do NOT differentiate into cartilage cells. They have two completely different progenitor cells and morphologies, for Christ's sake! One is from haematopoietic cells (all blood cells come from these) and the other is mesenchymal cells (cartilage and bone progenitors, among others).

I don't know where you got your information about wound and fracture healing, but it is ENTIRELY incorrect. A very basic look at ANY nursing, medical, or college biology book will confirm this. Flagged for misinformation.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 

Maddog, I hope you'll understand.

We have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, tens of thousands of hours.

Only the uninformed would suggest we post schematics, or bring unwanted attention to ourselves.

Per the U2U, if I can help in time, I will.

Our circuits are imbedded in the very same manner as our top secret satellite circuits. You can't x-ray them, you can't MRI them, you can't slice them, and the ceramic material eats up die tools if one tries to carefully remove the material.

I'll be in touch. U2U as I said.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


You're getting some bad info out of a textbook.

Yes, they do dedifferentiate.

You were taught crap learned by rote, repeated, and now you're learning the same old crap, learned by rote.

Ever curious about what's outside the box?

I assure you, the absolute worst place to be for learning - is the world of academia.

They just reload the same old wheel, and each year give it another spin.

THAT'S why we still have all these basic diseases and seem to make little progress.

Again, it's biophysics.

Not medicine.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
*sigh*

Dooper, I spent four years working in cell culture on chondrocytes, fibroblasts, and haematopoietic stem cells. These cells do not dedifferentiate, they to not become each other, and they honestly have no reason to. Our body uses a fibrin/fibrinogen cascade complex to heal fractures and wounds, which is facilitated by fibroblasts, platelets, and neutrophils. The only place I know of that dedifferentiation takes place is in nematodes and worms. The only time it has been seen in mammalian tissue is when exogenous DNA from these worms or amphibians has been introduced into mouse or rat cells, and even then, it wasn't a complete dedifferentiation. If it takes another organism's DNA to do it, it's not a native ability of mammals.

I'll ask you again, can you provide ANY evidence for your claims, or should I just flag you again for posting a hoax and misinformation?

[edit on 10/10/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

[edit on 10/10/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

Flag me.

We're done.

As I figured.

Academia.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

Flag me.

We're done.

As I figured.

Academia.


So, when faced with verifiable, experimentally-proven and tested evidence, you fold like a house of cards?

Figured as much.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

I suppose I could send a copy of the laboratory results to a third party who would agree not to disclose anything but the test results.

On their own, they could check the credentials of the laboratory, and thus its credibility.

Maybe a Mod.

We were going to have a major university test our technology, and you know what they wanted? Patents.

Universities are so hungry for patents, they'll strong-arm you to share in the patent just for testing and validating results!

Hey.

Flag me.

I'm very comfortable with what I have.

Things you never will.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Universities are legally not allowed to claim or file patents on anything not discovered with university funds and in university facilities, especially not when presented with third party data. I've signed similar agreements with every university I've worked for/been a student at.

Care to try another fabrication that's not so easily destroyed?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

That's true.

But it's one, constant pressure to try to inject themselves into the process, pressuring you to let them do further analysis and try some variables they are curious about, and of course, they point out that any "joint" efforts will entitle them to a portion of the technology.

We grew weary of all the BS.

All we wanted was testing and a report.

And if you tell me that Universities aren't under great pressure to produce patents, then you're badly mistaken.

If it's new - they want a piece.

The DOE is the same way. An assymetrical magnet was developed, and because the inventor/discoverer had earlier taken some DOE grant funds, they said it applied to this technology, they confiscated it, and they squashed it.

You don't need to tell me how it works.

Been there.

Tried that.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Of course the DOE took it if it was generated using DOE money. That is very clearly spelled out in large letters in any NIH, DOE, DOD, and NSF grant given. Anything developed using one cent of government money is subject to government subjugation. It would take a halfwit to think that money comes free of charge.

As for testing, why not have a private lab do it? Why not just perform rigorous testing yourself and publish it, either in a peer-reviewed or pop science journal? Why not apply for a patent and then publish the findings here? If you have a patent filing claim, it would be impossible for anyone to steal your data and file one themselves, even if you haven't been awarded a patent yet.

It all stinks of deception and excuses to me. You have a million and one ways to get the information out there, and yet you refuse to back any of your claims, even on the most basic material you've presented (and subsequently been shown to be wrong about).



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

Here's the problem we ran into.

Most labs will not certify the results of their own testing - IF it violates a law of physics.

Also, the patent office will turn down a patent - even if you prove it works - IF it violates a law of physics.

Not only that, but instantly your technology is confiscated - I can't recall the statute now - and you are required to sign an agreement that you'll never speak of it again, you'll drop all further research, and they ask about every person who knows or may know of the technology, and then they have them sign the same agreement.

That's the way it works.

We called in a foresic engineering firm from Germany. Thinking the Germans wouldn't blow us out of our gig, that they would do a thorough job as Germans are known for - and that they would use the very best German test equipment.

They came. They tested. And tested. And retested and retested.

Finally, they were very angry. Started packing up to leave. We asked about the test results.

They said there would be no test results. That if they released the test results, they would lose their accreditation and their reputation.

Because we were doing exactly what we said we were doing.

This is not academia. This is the real world we have to work in, and it's not just another type of mousetrap.

Doors are closed and locked down tight. That's why we finally got the independent lab in the US to sign a non-disclosure. It protects us - and THEM.

Surviving member have had their labs raided, weapons stuck in their faces, other times just shown the weapons, and each time were told to knock it off.

Now I know this sounds like something that couldn't happen in the US - but it does. It's very real, and it's a threat to - someone.

The only way we've even partially succeeded is by placing the technology in a related device. These people THINK they've bought one thing, and of course it works as advertised.

What they don't know is what they actually have, how it actually works, and not one of these consumers has taken the trouble to measure energy in, and energy out.

They just think it's a phenomenal, well-built device.

You can sell things as long as it has a cord and they plug into a socket. Even if it doesn't need that socket.

We've moved on to other, more interesting things. No percentage in beating our heads against a wall, receiving more threats, or even worse.

Things are NOT always as they seem, and certainly not as they should be.

So we just do our own thing, keep our heads down, and continue our discoveries.

It's a lot safer that way.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
That's complete bunk, Dooper, and you know it. The patent office couldn't care less about what laws your supposed new methods violate. In fact, they aren't even interested in your data. I've seen patents that were literally just a page long description of an idea.

The only purpose a patent serves is to prove you did it first. If you honestly think they'll confiscate your device/materials (which they won't), then don't tell them what it does. They require NO DATA for a patent, so I fail to see why any sort of testing is required on your part. File a patent for your electro-thingamajig, and in all patent forms where you have to state purpose and function, simply state that it provides electrical stimulation to the body in a novel form. Call it some sort of external transmembrane stimulator.

What I'm getting at is, you are making excuse after excuse, and each one has an easy solution. You haven't gotten a patent because, to be quite honest, you're a nutter. The "device" you have is not backed by science, or at least any that you've posted here, and you've demonstrated less than a grade school grasp of basic biological concepts, let alone any medical concepts you've claimed to have under your belt.

A real investigator, like the one you claim to be, would have no problem gaining patents on all or parts of your work, regardless of test results.

Not to mention, you have yet to provide any information about these supposed MIT scientists you claim were murdered. You can't even give a name of a single person you worked with who was knocked off by "the men in black"? Are you TRYING to make yourself seem less credible?



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
The "device" you have is not backed by science, or at least any that you've posted here,


That's not entirely true. I can't speak to the biological or cellular aspects, but the electrical ones presented are sound.

Also, Universities DO go through godawful contortions to get patent rights on things they can claim even a remote connection with. My first wife was a researcher, and knowledge of THAT, I'm privy to.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join