Kary Mullis' Next-Gen Cure for Killer Infection

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I've been a long time fan of Karry Mullis. His down to earth nature. His outspoken opinions and criticism of the scientific industrial complex.

Anyway I was thinking what is Karry up too these days?

And this is what I found. I've only just stumbled across it, it's several months old now. Normally I'd check this thoroughly, but given karry's caliber, I thought I'd throw it out and see what you think.

Get this, not only the flu but for anthrax, a 100% success rate!! and potentially a cure for AIDS and cancer! The works!

I know that sounds like the usual crack pottery, but this is the man who won the noble prize in chemistry for his polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique.

To which he attributes to mind altering drugs btw. He is definitely unique.

Unfortunately his technique is directly used in the reverse engineering of certain viruses. Could he also contribute this incredible break through?

Do you think he has a chance of getting research funding?
Could it topple a multi billion dollar industry?
Could it be a saving grace in light of the current situation?



Man I love this guy, where are all the other cool scientists?

[edit on 20-11-2009 by squiz]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
this guy is f... brilliant... but i don't think they'll allow it to be used anytime soon. it would kill 90% of big pharma.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
great idea, too bad well never see the benefits of it.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Yes... unfortunately he is no longer seen in a good light.

The primary reason is because he openly questions the HIV-AIDS link together with the retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, Perth Group in Australia who offered cash reward for an actual microscopic picture of pure isolated HIV, not just an artists conception, etc....

He did not suffer like Duesberg from attacks on funding and reputation, but he lost popularity with mainstream scientific circles.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by squiz
 

The primary reason is because he openly questions the HIV-AIDS link together with the retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, Perth Group in Australia who offered cash reward for an actual microscopic picture of pure isolated HIV, not just an artists conception, etc....

He did not suffer like Duesberg from attacks on funding and reputation, but he lost popularity with mainstream scientific circles.


I am aware of that, in fact I think he has a strong case.
Watch Aids Inc.

Not all is above board on the subject of AIDS, so it's expected when people rock the official line. And question the big business that AIDS has become.

Ironically his breakthrough can potentially cure it. Will they be attacking him then? Hmphh.. probably. Many will lose on profiting out of suffering.

Controversial, Funny and just plain brilliant maybe we should listen?

Thanks for your post.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by squiz]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The thing is it's already in initial stages.

I agree, the very first thing I thought of is this will never get out.

But I was a little shocked to see this presentation. It has some heavy duty sponsors.

I've often wondered if greed can also be used for good. Think about it?
These greedy B***ards would probably stab their mother in the back if they could make a profit. Dangle a big enough carrot in front of them and they'll bite.

One big player could snatch this up, and stab all the others in the back.

There's no suppression of this one, the cats out of the bag.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   


retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, Perth Group in Australia who offered cash reward for an actual microscopic picture of pure isolated HIV, not just an artists conception, etc....

He did not suffer like Duesberg from attacks on funding and reputation, but he lost popularity with mainstream scientific circles.


HIV has been imaged hundreds of thousands of times, in animals and humans, since the 1980s using electron microscopy. If you do a simple Google search with the keywords "HIV electron microscopy", you will find plenty of images. I have personally witnessed several such imagings in my research days prior to medical school.

Here are a few sample images. In them, you can easily see the unique geometry and glycoprotein capsid, characteristic of HIV.

Large field HIV

Clearer large field HIV image

HIV on surface of human T-lymphocyte (Helper T-cell)

Large field of HIV coated T-cell

Now, through these images, I have documented the viruses existence, phylogeny, and ability to infect human T-cells (which are unmistakable in the last two images). Where is my cash prize?



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Doesnt this allow for genetic specific bio weapons????????

Genocide just got a whole lot easier...............



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



That's not how genetics work. Humans, as a whole, only have about 2% sequence variation between them, regardless of ethnicity, gender, diet, or age. Within that 2% variation, you would still see a massive among of variation among seemingly homogenous populations, meaning that the idea of a "genetic weapon" is laughable and unscientific.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Well, I'm not qualified to make a absolute call on this, and I'm not too clear on the specifics of what the so called AIDS dissenters arguments are.

But I believe the central argument for those guys is that HIV is not AIDS?

Anyway, this is not what the thread was supposed be about.

No amount of character assassination can touch this guy, the proof is in the pudding.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by squiz]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


What "proof" has Kary Mullis provided? I've read up on him before, and he speaks in generalities with no research to back up his claims. Even the most basic claims, such as the 'prove the HIV virus exists" shtick, was just easily shot down above in my first post.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Oh, sheesh. His involvement is limited. All he has done is ask a question that has never been properly answered. That is all.

I don't think he has made any claims at all. Merely asked a simple question.

And he's been attacked for it.

Why don't you check to see what he has to say first. Before jumping on the band wagon?



That's it. Oh my! how could he?

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Mullis is the same man who claims he discovered PCR while walking through the woods on an acid trip (or in some accounts, while he was driving on an acid trip). His story has changed so many times and in so many ways that it's hard to take anything he says at face value. Not to mention, he remains one of the only scientists to patent a basic scientific process, something I'm reminded of everytime I have to put "TM" after PCR in a grant proposal or paper draft.

Also, he couldn't have possible done a very good literature review. PCR was discovered about a decade after HIV. Within this time frame, there are a plethora of papers linking human t-cell leulemia virus (later called HIV) and AIDS. A two minute literature review on PubMed shows this:

AIDS and human tumors/viruses (1983)

AIDS Pathology (1983)

AIDS linked to human T-cell leukemia virus (HIV) (1983)

IgG antibodies for human T-cell leukemia virus (HIV) found in AIDS patients (1983)

So, in just a couple of minutes, I was able to find four peer-reviewed, published, and critically examined studies showing a strong positive link between HIV and AIDS. These papers all premiered in large journals for their time, meaning that Mullis is either being disingenuous by suggesting that he couldn't "find any papers" demonstrating a linkage, or he's just plain ignorant.

You decide which is more palatable to you. I already know which I choose, both through that video and through the two personal encounters I had with him while at university.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Real nice form. You know what an ad hominem attack is don't you?

Those links only further prove their case though!


If you actually new the arguments and what exactly you are trying to refute, you may be able to see that. But I'm not discussing it here thanks.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE AIDS DEBATE!!!

Go watch AIDS inc.

Why don't you send the links to to him? and challenge him on it?
Why don't you win you own noble prize?
Why don't you cure Anthrax?
Why don't you stop derailing this thread?

There are so many self proclaimed experts at ATS these days? It's really becoming an unpleasant place. Why does every one want an argument?

If you want to do a hit piece. Start a thread about the "AIDS DISSENTERS". And take your trolling somewhere else.

Like I said, the proof is in the pudding isn't it? Despite all of your hot air.


[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I'm sorry. I was the poster that triggered the off-topic aids-hiv discussion.

But before this topic gets too off topic, let me add one final shocking information.

The US Congress Congressional investigation on Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HTLV/HIV.

He was found guilty of scientific fraud.

This finding was facilitated by one of his laboratory assistants who provided some details of the process.

The fraud concern his scientific article published on Science, the second leading journal according to Thomson Reuters ISI Impact Factor(Nature is the first).

Needless to say politics got the best of medicine this time with the paradoxical Nobel Prize based on faulty science as discovered by the honest part of US government.

But now the topic deserves its own thread, I agree.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by jjjtir]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Real nice form. You know what an ad hominem attack is don't you?

Those links only further prove their case though!


How exactly do they "further their case" if they provide solid proof of HIV/HTLV linking to AIDS?


If you actually new the arguments and what exactly you are trying to refute, you may be able to see that. But I'm not discussing it here thanks.


I "new" [sic] the argument. Mullis was suggesting that there isn't evidence connecting HIV to AIDS. He is incorrect. End of argument.


Why don't you send the links to to him? and challenge him on it?


Many have, I have personally seen it happen at Vanderbilt University. He simply deflects the question and says he was premature in askign the question.


Why don't you win you own noble prize?


How would I win a Nobel for something discovered in the 1980s?


Why don't you cure Anthrax?


We already have a vaccine for anthrax. It's been around for about 8 years. Good job doing your research, buddy.


Why don't you stop derailing this thread?


The same could be said for you.


There are so many self proclaimed experts at ATS these days? It's really becoming an unpleasant place. Why does every one want an argument?


So, by sharing by expertise, along with ACTUAL scientific studies, I'm "looking for an argument"? I thought this site was about theories and either proving or debunking them?


And take your trolling somewhere else.

Like I said, the proof is in the pudding isn't it? Despite all of your hot air.


Ah, here's the key to all of your posts. If someone disagrees with you, regardless of hwo much evidence they provide, they are "trolling". Is that how you keep from changing your beliefs? Cute.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by squiz
 

The US Congress Congressional investigation on Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HTLV/HIV.

He was found guilty of scientific fraud.

This finding was facilitated by one of his laboratory assistants who provided some details of the process.

The fraud concern his scientific article published on Science, the second leading journal according to Thomson Reuters ISI Impact Factor(Nature is the first).

Needless to say politics got the best of medicine this time with the paradoxical Nobel Prize based on faulty science as discovered by the honest part of US government.

But now the topic deserves its own thread, I agree.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by jjjtir]


The fraud he was found guilty of was due to publishing prior to having solid results. Those results have since been produced, which support the link of HIV to AIDS.

It was horrible irresponsible of Gallo to publish his data prior to completing the work, and it was irresponsible of Science to accept his work based on his name alone. However, this doesn't invalidate all later work on the topic.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Write up your thesis and send it too him. None of any of those links scientifically show that HIV causes AIDS. Period.

I tell you what? write right here and I will send it to him. How's that?

Show it scientifically. You haven't done that. Just babble. Where in the links is the proof. It's all talk. And so are you. Fact of the matter is science is a little more stringent, than vague relationships I'm afraid.

There's nothing in those links. I'm sorry.

Your Just a troll or too ignorant to see it. your last post reveals this is a personal agenda or something, been reading my posts have we?

Can you debunk the current experiment? this is what the thread is about.

Write a full scientific summarry with references how HIV causes AIDS.
And I contact the dissenters for you.



[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Um, you realise those links I provided are from the public medical research database, and are electronic copies of landmark studies regarding HIV and AIDS, right?

I'm not sure how much more scientific I can get beyond providing you with papers showing electron microscopy, double-blind studies, and statistical correlation.

Could you provide me with what sort of evidence YOU think is scientific, since apparently the scientific community hasn't been made privy to this sort of research as of yet?

The fact of the matter is, you have failed to respond to any of my points above. I explained that this has been presented to Mullis, and he declined to explain his stance. I also explained why I couldn't 'win a Nobel" for somehting that has beenp roven 20 years ago, and why a "cure" for anthrax being discovered now would be old news. You have repeatedly shown a lack of ANY knowledge of the scientific process or community, and then you go on to say my links to well-known and well-studied experiments aren't "scientific" enough for you? Puh-lease.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Put it your own words. In other words prove it. Nothing but vague relationships. and more talk. Scientific method remember?

People with HIV can live long healthy lives without the other conditions that are associated with AIDS. It's just semantics.

In fact it's believed it's been with us for thousands of years, according to some. To think this has happened all of a sudden because of HIV is science fiction.

Write it up with references and I'll send it.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum