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.

 

A real CURE for AIDS, Hepititis, Cancer, Herpes etc, for less than the price of a night out!

page: 17
272
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpanet
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Again, I don't care about why you drew the conclusion, it doesn't change a thing other than you having the last word. You still drew the conclusion without data; I mean I knew doctors were stubborn in their ways, but wow...


So, in other words, you have no real way to explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Neat.


Also I didn't ignore your thoughts on the HPV vaccine as I found it lacking in scope, and didn't mean the pharmaceutical company Merck was "shooting themselves in the foot". When you look past the sugar coating that "hey we have a cancer vaccine" provides, and notice that it is:
1) a vaccine NOT a cure


I never said it was. However, medicine focuses on prevention of disease just as much as it does treatment of disease. Why would a company who makes money off of treating disease want to prevent the disease from occurring in the first place? Simple. It looks good in their marketing.


2) the lancet stated that the vaccine was good up to 4-5 years (www.thelancet.com...) and seeing as to how the original vaccine marketed by Merck was only introduced in 2006, we still await any substantial evidence that this vaccine works.
3) The vaccine hasn't shown any decline in incidence above the average decline of cervical cancer from 1975*2007 of 4.5% APC. (seer.cancer.gov...)
4) my favorite is that the average age for cervical cancer is 48, and the clinical followed 1,113 woman with average ages of 23. Hell it only killed 4,020 in 2009, the real cash cow for pharma is lung cancer!


Let's look at these three statements logically. The vaccine was introduced in 2006. The average age of cervical cancer diagnosis is 48. Cervical cancer's main cause is HPV infection, which leads to dysplasia and metaplasia of cervical epithelium, which takes years. Once infected with one of the virus strains, the vaccine is essentially useless, so younger women are the target population for the vaccine. Now, why would we see a decline in cervical cancer in three years (2010 is barely half-over, so no health statistics exist) when those who would benefit from the vaccine aren't even within the average age for diagnosis yet?

Also, so what if only 4,000 died from cervical cancer last year? Many thousands more beat the disease, and had to go through a tough course of chemotherapy or a painful series of surgeries in the process. As a woman, I'm grossly offended by your flippant attitude that "oh, it doesn't matter if they prevent THIS cancer, only 4000 women died of it". Thank god you don't write health policy.


The vaccine is certainly not hurting Merck's profits, more like a volcano insurance salesman to me.


Each year, nearly 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, most of whom will seek treatment. Do you have any idea how much those treatments cost, and how much money Merck would make from that? What Merck has done is determined that this vaccine will boost their name and serve a wonderful PR tool, just as any vaccine/cure would, and will increase prescription for their other brand drugs. It's marketing 101, and the reason drug companies continue to try to improve their drugs.


As for the chemotherapy, I am sorry I just did a quick search. Maybe you can dazzle me with some positive chemotherapy numbers?


This is why I get so frustrated. People like you act as if cancer is a static, single disease, and like chemotherapeutics are a single drug that acts the same in all patients. Neither of these are true. In the case of childhood ALL, chemotherapy has a phenomenal success rate, over 90%. In advance melanoma, not so much. It depends on the cancer, its stage and grade, the health of the patient overall, and the patient's own biochemical response to the drugs. This is why physicians have to collect as much information as possible about a patient before starting chemotherapy, and even then will only progress at a slow pace until they see how the patient will react.




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Bedlam, you seem to digress when getting to the point of empirical science.
Empirical does mean you have at most a working hypothesis and not a complete theory. No, we do not know "most everything" - we do not even know how exactly our body produces endorphines in placebo cases, runner's high etc.

You also seem to have a linguistic strategy of washing unproven treatments together with all sorts of magic and quackery. Homeopathy is quite another issue - I would not call it quackery: it sometimes works without any placebo effect, for instance on animals or newborns. And sometimes it does not, for its theory questions general and repeatable states.

From a linguistic analysis point of view, homeopathy is still more coherent than economic theories accepted in the mainstream and honored with Nobel prizes, e.g. Milton Friedman.

With homepathy, the protocol of Western experimental science cannot be applied as we learned in school.

Electricity and radio waves in healing are Western findings, repeatable etc.
Logical and linguistic analysis has proven time and again that various Western theories of science are also based on assumptions, linguistic metaphors and hypnotic factors.

You are intelligent and obviously have a background, but somehow fairness is missing. So far I think foregone conclusion fits your treatment of the whole subject. You set out to prove that this is the wrong direction in research.

Yet, this cannot be proven without serious experiments, from existing theories alone.

Many advances of science came with inadequate theory first. And many, in the West, have been bitterly opposed by what was then establishment science.

But a researcher must have an open mind.

At worst, a dogmatic person will dismiss everything they cannot yet explain. That is contrary to EMPIRICAL research.
Actually, looking at the development of science, perhaps the discovery of penicillin IS the paradigm of development, and not what you stated - knowing all in advance in theory. Certainly it is in the biological sciences (not in math). Someone OBSERVES something and then proceeds to find out how it works AFTERWARDS. In physics, it is also the other way around, I grant you - with quantum theory and some of Einstein's hypotheses being proven only in the 21st century by CERN experiments.

In general, free minds did more for its development than those who held the beliefs of their predecessors dear. And most debunkers do not have a pretty psychology.

In my mind, it was a similar sabe lo todo mentality of what was then called science that constituted the biggest failure of the psychology of the Soviet-style life in which I grew up. You could never discover anything, because the smart scientific people at the top

1. either already now it
2. or declare it irrelevant.

At one point, Stalin banned all psychology from Soviet universities because he said there was no such thing as a soul, so psychology has no subject matter to study.

I have read on a few heat treatment therapy cases for cancer, THAT is relevant. And it may progress further, I wish.

We know chemo and ionizing radiation have very serious side effects today - and they also wreck average families financially. I see this every day. So it is only natural if people - doctors, scientists as well as laymen and yes, even believers in theocratic or magical systems are all searching for various alternatives.

Nutrition has been bitterly attacked by establishment doctors in the US in the eighties. Dogmatic MD's even sued nutritionists. Today, most doctors simply advise patients with cancer or other diseases to observe certain general nutritional guidelines. This is progress. Of course, many diet fads such as raw food only etc. are just as dogmatic and sometimes dangerous.

It is also politically problematic for me when someone is so pro-establishment on ATS. Do you actually question ALL (so-called alternative - or experimental) research in healing simply because they have not YET been proven?

Then why are you interested in reading about them?

It is needless to point out that seriously designed experiments are very expensive and that a lot of research today is financed by drug companies - who are just as interested in developing safe alternatives as BP is in developing electric cars.

It is credible to me that Rife killed certain fungi and then cancer cells with electric devices which would not harm a human.
It remains to be proven whether certain viruses can be killed like that with SPECIFIC frequencies as he claimed - or it could be a general issue with square waves. I am not certain of this - neither is Adachi. He apparently thinks square waves kill many pathogens.

Wegener was attacked when he proposed that the continents fit together. Now he is school material. How would you have reacted back then?

Know what: I think it is GOOD TO BE UNCERTAIN about things we do not know enough.

I am the first to grant you that many people today believe in all forms of childish magic simply because reality is hard to face (the Secret etc.). Somehow our Western paradigm needs to be adjusted though.

How do you react if you experience something you cannot explain?
Do you simply say it does not exist?
I would be prompted to search for answers. And having a background in logical and linguistic analysis, as well as epistemology, allows me to have an advantage in cutting out suggestions and BS theories.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I appreciate the Feynman quote by the way, it is nice. I like his writings anyway.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
sorry there was just too many pages to read through can somebody tell me if this device is a DIY or can you buy it somewhere?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Live by the sword and eventually you'll die by the sword, why see a doctor when we can have all the information we need from pubmed? Oh I forgot, yes we need prescriptions.

And with companies like Merck, who have committed scientific fraud, with held information concerning their Vytorin, which by the way was approved by FDA before the ENHANCE trial was ever initiated. And I won't even mention the insider trading that was done BEFORE the results were released and notice it seems all the big pharma was on the statins "snake oil". I wonder why you forgot to mention this kind of snakeoil, which seem a lot more dangerous than a Beck device. But hey at least we know that the Beck Protocol is safe, else it would have been banned a long time ago.

www.wired.com...

Merck that overcharged goverments and bribed doctors.
www.npr.org...

And you want to convince us that those companies are compassionate and have peoples interest in mind? - Now strangely enough, some cardiologists suspected something was wrong - but didn't someone talk about "we have to trust the scientists", so we don't need to question.

And it seem like most if not all statins were approved by FDA long before any trails were in the works, because the pharmaceutical companies complained that it was very expensive to run these trials. I thought it was a simple thing to do according some information released here - don't it bother you that statins were prescribed left and right, even before it had been peer reviewed? - So what is the difference between the so called quacks and their snakeoil and doctors prescribing statins?.

If you get upset or even bothered by what you read here - on a site that is not known for it's orthodox ideas, maybe you are in the wrong place?
So it only takes a simple battery driven device or the name Rife to get orthodox medicine all riled up.

People that aren't affected by any disease usually are quick to put snake oil and quack labels on "unorthodox" and "unproven" views, but seem to forget - that great ideas usually comes from unorthodox thinking. If everyone only could point to peer reviews and pubmed - you would have made yourself disposable.

It's nothing to get riled up about - we all have our view, whether it's orthodox or an alternative view. I personally don't care how to reach a goal, as long as I get there - do you?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
So, in other words, you have no real way to explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Neat.

Is that seriously what you took away from my reply? The reasoning is not what any of my arguments with you have been about. The fact that you ridiculed others for drawing a conclusion without data, then turned around and did the same exact thing is what I am talking about. The actions are humorous, and if you don't understand I am done trying.


I never said it was. However, medicine focuses on prevention of disease just as much as it does treatment of disease. Why would a company who makes money off of treating disease want to prevent the disease from occurring in the first place? Simple. It looks good in their marketing.


So your reasoning for this vaccine is "it looks good in their marketing"? This was what my whole last post was about, but I guess you didn't understand? This vaccine looks good on paper but hasn't even been around long enough to prove its worth, and yet you brought it up as if it was taking money away from Merck for curing cervical cancer.


Let's look at these three statements logically. The vaccine was introduced in 2006. The average age of cervical cancer diagnosis is 48. Cervical cancer's main cause is HPV infection, which leads to dysplasia and metaplasia of cervical epithelium, which takes years. Once infected with one of the virus strains, the vaccine is essentially useless, so younger women are the target population for the vaccine. Now, why would we see a decline in cervical cancer in three years (2010 is barely half-over, so no health statistics exist) when those who would benefit from the vaccine aren't even within the average age for diagnosis yet?


Again, this is my point. I am glad you can grasp that, give yourself a pat on the back.


Also, so what if only 4,000 died from cervical cancer last year? Many thousands more beat the disease, and had to go through a tough course of chemotherapy or a painful series of surgeries in the process. As a woman, I'm grossly offended by your flippant attitude that "oh, it doesn't matter if they prevent THIS cancer, only 4000 women died of it". Thank god you don't write health policy.

Hold on now, I am speaking purely from a statistical standpoint just like pharmaceuticals do. If you get offended, that is your own problem. My point is purely monetary; so 4000 die from cervical cancer, meanwhile 157,300 have died already in 2010 from lung cancer. So in a bottom line outlook, if Merck had created a vaccine for lung cancer and actually decreased the deaths from lung cancer then you would have my attention, but this vaccine is not "shooting Merck in the foot". That is all I was saying, if you took that farther then that is your own fault.


Each year, nearly 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, most of whom will seek treatment. Do you have any idea how much those treatments cost, and how much money Merck would make from that? What Merck has done is determined that this vaccine will boost their name and serve a wonderful PR tool, just as any vaccine/cure would, and will increase prescription for their other brand drugs. It's marketing 101, and the reason drug companies continue to try to improve their drugs.


Exactly, if anything the vaccine has increased profits for Merck and once again you managed to disprove yourself because this isn't "shooting Merck in the foot" either.

your frustrated? I am sorry that you make assumptions on my views and then get mad about them. Either you have statistical peer reviewed data preferably published, or you don't. Don't tell me that chemo has a 90% success rate, show me the numbers doc.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by arpanet]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi No, we do not know "most everything" - we do not even know how exactly our body produces endorphines in placebo cases, runner's high etc.


But we sure know how penicillin kills bacteria. And Cipro, etc. There's not many antibiotics that are a complete mystery, which is the theme I thought this Rife/bacteria topic was pursuing.



You also seem to have a linguistic strategy of washing unproven treatments together with all sorts of magic and quackery. Homeopathy is quite another issue - I would not call it quackery: it sometimes works without any placebo effect, for instance on animals or newborns. And sometimes it does not, for its theory questions general and repeatable states.


Here's a topic I'm sure we'll diverge on, sort of like Rife. I don't think much of homeopathy. Actually, given a choice between having to use Long Lost Friend or homeopathy as a healing source, I'd have to think her over.



From a linguistic analysis point of view, homeopathy is still more coherent than economic theories accepted in the mainstream and honored with Nobel prizes, e.g. Milton Friedman.


But from a physics point of view, it's unlikely even a single molecule of your agent remains. And any "memory" in that water is gone in picoseconds.



Electricity and radio waves in healing are Western findings, repeatable etc.


Again, in the sense that you can ablate things with RF. Not so much with Drown machines and Rife.



But a researcher must have an open mind.


insert trope about brains falling out here



At worst, a dogmatic person will dismiss everything they cannot yet explain. That is contrary to EMPIRICAL research.


Empirical research has its place. However, one has to be very careful not to verge into pathological research when performing it. See also Rene Blondlot.



In my mind, it was a similar sabe lo todo mentality of what was then called science that constituted the biggest failure of the psychology of the Soviet-style life in which I grew up. You could never discover anything, because the smart scientific people at the top


Yet, Soviet empirical science also gave us Lysenko, who also preached practice over theory. And you see where that got you.




Do you actually question ALL (so-called alternative - or experimental) research in healing simply because they have not YET been proven?

Then why are you interested in reading about them?


No, I question alternative research that's only researched by the guy promoting it. There is another ATS guy that was tossing Qi Gong "scholarly reearch papers" at me, and they were all written by the Qi Gong practitioner they claimed to be researching, published from his place of business. It was a lot like Gorgun.

If you read the thread, you've surely realized that I bought the Beck stuff and gave it a shot, and anecdotally speaking, nada.

I'm sure that in this huge wad of stuff there is likely something interesting - I like bacteriophage research, for example. I just have no truck with radionics, because it's ridiculous.



It is needless to point out that seriously designed experiments are very expensive and that a lot of research today is financed by drug companies - who are just as interested in developing safe alternatives as BP is in developing electric cars.


But non-serious/homebrew Joe Sixpack/Adachi experiments really don't tell you anything but more anecdotal lore. They're worse than not doing it at all.



Wegener was attacked when he proposed that the continents fit together. Now he is school material. How would you have reacted back then?


Trofim Lysenko was denounced except in the Soviet Bloc countries, and for good reason. There's lots of stuff on both sides. How do you feel about snake handling? The practitioners swear God will save you from strychnine and copperheads.

If Wegener had said that the continents broke apart because UFOs did it, or the Earth was hollow and the continents were on wheels, then no, I wouldn't have taken the time to read it. I feel that way about Rife, Drown, Reich, Keely and the general magic frequency/radionic/orgone/dowsing crew. IF you could repeatably show me a definitive effect I might regain interest in it, but it would almost be the sort of thing I'd have to do for myself.



How do you react if you experience something you cannot explain?
Do you simply say it does not exist?


I take lots of notes, try to determine if I imagined it, try to replicate it if it makes sense and so on.

I have been in the middle of a lot of unexplainable stuff, but I don't think I've ever leaped to "UFOs did it", "It's magic" or whatnot. I'm Willie WetBlanket at MUFON meetings.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Just want to put in my 2 cents.
We have been using the blood electrifier in my family for years, it is as good as they say and does no harm. There can be a little irritation and redness on your wrists at the electrode location if you have it up to high for to long but thats about it. Also if you are in very bad health starting with to much can load your bloodstream up with too much dead microbes causing what is commonly called a healing crisis. The whole pharma-healthcare-merry-go-round is lots of fun but you can get off when ever you want. A truck driver friend of mine got rid of mouth herpes this way. He didn't even use a proper electrifier, he just applied a 9 volt battery to his moistened lip a few times a day for a few months
(he twisted the battery back and forth to reverse polarity)
There are many people who have no desire to be responsible for their own health and our health care system suites them just fine but you can leave it when ever you want... just sayin...



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angeldust1199
Your holy peer review system have killed thousands upon thousands of people, just think VIOXX. Oops, well now tell me - where is the prosecutions, outrage and character assassinations? - But it's all about covering yourself - if anyone die from your treatment, well just too bad, as this is peer reviewed stuff.



Very true, but how do I tell the difference between breathing radon gas in Mexico (poisoning me) as my funds diminish rapidly to any other claim?

It is not whether we disagree; it is the question of does it really work, and I don’t know, so help us to answer that question by maybe doing true clinical studies. Clinical studies are not a bad thing, and following strict protocol is not a bad thing either. It puts validity to it all, and validity is what we ask for, plain and simple. I don’t have the luxury of seeing a love one cured in front t of my own eyes, so for the billions of us out there we need something that undeniable proves its worth.

How can I make you understand this better?


[edit on 23-6-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


I agree with your post. What I find is that much of all this seems to be stuck in mystical fuzziness, but we can take a natural cure such as willow bark and if it was discovered today it would be one of the greatest discoveries of the century. Willow bark though can be completely analyzed to see exactly what benefits it provides.

When talking homeopathy why can’t we know down to the nat’s ass what it provides in benefits. What was a mystical cure 1000 years ago is aspirin today, I just want this other stuff to be analyzed to make it as common as aspirin, and don’t use conspiracies as the reason all of it is not already a common practice. The world is huge and America is not the end to all discoveries, nor does America’s reach go around the world in preventing alternate cures from becoming truly successful mainstream cures.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
For what it's worth, it may get buried in this long thread, but....

Look what was reported in the New York Times in 1992, not in the news articles compiled in "take back your power" pdf.

So, what was given in the thread so far is that Steven Kaali presented the work at a conference.

But NY Times reported that Baxter International collaborated with the study.

What to make of this new detail?

That puts a new level of weirdness to the whole story....

Patents; Electric Current Disinfects Blood


Thus far, the hospital has conducted laboratory tests in conjunction with Baxter International Inc. on blood infected with the AIDS virus. The blood was pumped to a location between two platinum electrodes, and Dr. Kaali said that about 95 percent of the viruses had lost their infectious ability after a six-minute exposure to a current of about 100-millionths of an amp. The chief advantage, he said, is that the treatment did not appear to harm the blood itself or have other toxic effects.

Dr. Kaali said the treatment could be incorporated into something like a kidney dialysis machine, which removes a patient's blood, filters out accumulated poisons and returns it to the body.


[edit on 23-6-2010 by jjjtir]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I am getting out of this thread for I cannot stand the toxic psychology of professional debunkers and their verbal abuse patterns.
Typically they distort everything just to justify themselves.

Especially with Bedlam and Mr. Dostupa, you will have foregone conclusions, an unwillingness to look at evidence, making people appear ridiculous who do not profess your views, washing together everything you dislike about other people believing anything you do not like.

Like I said earlier: DEBUNKERS DO NOT HAVE A PRETTY PSYCHOLOGY.
They are vengeful, dogmatic and petty.
And the worst of all, they are totally incapable of compromises of putting themselves in the other person's shoes for a minute.

They flaunt their imagined superiotiry based on commonly held dogmas.

And they almost never talk about the topic, all it is they want to thrash people who are associated with it. It makes me sick and makes me wonder if they are professionals paid by the drug industry. Everything and everyone is always wrong if they do not profess their particular beliefs.

I have encountered either a deliberate misrepresentation here with Bedlam or worse.

Check Bedlam's answer to my post LITERALLY, please:

"But in that case, it seems like a perfect case for being nothing but a placebo reaction. If it was just below the threshold of sensation, it's hard to know that it's doing anything."

This is what I wrote in answer:

"Please re-read my sentence, Bedlam. In your haste, you understood the opposite of what I said.
I said sinus pathogens were cleared when I could FEEL the current going through my head, not the other way around!"

Bedlam's answer:

"No, I understood you. A dramatic placebo with a bad taste, a weird sensation, or some tangible side effect (like, for example, giving you some Niacin) typically has a stronger result than one that doesn't "do" anything."

Now look here, YOU DID WRITE the following sentence: "If it was just below the threshold of sensation, it's hard to know that it's doing anything."

It is clear to any reader that I meant my experience was ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. Your sentence means clearly that below the threshold it could be a placebo effect. When you replied the second time, you did not quote this incriminating sentence yourself, you simply pretended to have meant the opposite of what you actually said - probably hoping that no one would bother to check the evidence.

If you write common, understandable English, and it is not a foreign tongue for you, you have two choices:

1. either GO BACK and say you made a mistake in your comment, and it was the precise mistake I called up in my post in reply (and thus, the first time in so many pages you would have to recognize that you are not as perfect as you would like yourself to be); or

you would have to explain to us somehow that by the phrase "below the threshold" you actually meant "ABOVE the threshold..." which is black for white... quite an Orwellian tactic.

People are not THAT stupd you know. And there have been shills discovered at ATS.

This was pathetic.

At any rate, I am not going to read your answer - probably you are going to take my stuff apart, piece by piece and try to prove that I am as worthless as my arguments and that you are right in everything.

Blah blah blah.

Someone violating so many civilized rules of argumentation at the same time is possibly doing it PROFESSIONALLY. So from now on I am going to hit the IGNORE button because this whole discussion is NOT ABOUT what is seems to be about. It is shills trying to debunk anything alternative from what industry dictates.

Of the two, Dostupa seemed more honest in his acupuncture thread (also a "debunking" attempt). Now homeopathy is next (watch out one of them is going to make a thread on that), while chemotherapy is supposed to be great (yes, I know it works for kids sometimes - still, they throw up for months and their hair falls out). And anything threatening the industry is going to be questioned.

Due to the unfair, hostile tactics and the impenetrable, dogmatic mentality of these two, I began to suspect that they do this professionally.

It happened on political boards already on ATS and some people proved it. The worst-case scenario was the paid shills attacking 911 sceptics.
Now alternative medicine is coming up. Watch for the shills attacking environmentalism as the DH disaster is unfolding.

Bye. I tried honestly - but you guys are above human.

Ignore button.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
It just amazes me how on how much dollars have been donated for cancer research, and other sickness’s for the last 40 years and the cures are not released to the public.

For example: Bristol Meyers Squib reported about 10 years ago that Iridium and Ruthenium are anti cancerous. Great! There is an answer, so how do you go about making a cure out of it?

Common sense would tell me: Make the particles small enough so that they can be used intravenously to those that have cancer right?

Instead our geniuses can’t figure out how to make monatomic elements to use to cure people of their maladies. What is even more ironic is that there are small supplement companies making Monatomic Iridium, Ruthenium, gold, silver and people are actually being helped like:
Colloidal silver, Gold, Iridium Ruthenium Research

So, if the Japanese have done studies and determined that indeed Gold, and the above mentioned noble metals are in fact anti oxidants, then why are the pharmaceutical companies using them to treat cancer?

I think they enjoy the free cash that they get every year from those well meaning fundraising companies that generate billions of free cash for “research”. I would venture to say that in the last 40 years, about 20 Billion Dollars have been generated in free cash for “Research” that never get finished, and never gets to the hands of those that need it the most.

Frustrating!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
For what it's worth, it may get buried in this long thread, but....

Look what was reported in the New York Times in 1992, not in the news articles compiled in "take back your power" pdf.

So, what was given in the thread so far is that Steven Kaali presented the work at a conference.

But NY Times reported that Baxter International collaborated with the study.

What to make of this new detail?

That puts a new level of weirdness to the whole story....

Patents; Electric Current Disinfects Blood


Thus far, the hospital has conducted laboratory tests in conjunction with Baxter International Inc. on blood infected with the AIDS virus. The blood was pumped to a location between two platinum electrodes, and Dr. Kaali said that about 95 percent of the viruses had lost their infectious ability after a six-minute exposure to a current of about 100-millionths of an amp. The chief advantage, he said, is that the treatment did not appear to harm the blood itself or have other toxic effects.

Dr. Kaali said the treatment could be incorporated into something like a kidney dialysis machine, which removes a patient's blood, filters out accumulated poisons and returns it to the body.


[edit on 23-6-2010 by jjjtir]


I just checked in on route to my retreat


Didn't want this contribution to get lost in the intellectual debate going on about Rife and other side issues.

JJJtir, what do you make of this very interesting bit of info you have brought to the thread?



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Kokatsi
 


Just a few points, Kokatsi. I know I wasn't involved in the debate between you and Bedlam earlier, so I'll keep it brief.

1) It's Miss Dostupa, not Mister, though I can't fault you for not knowing that.

2) What Bedlam was saying (at least in my interpretation) is that the placebo effect is obviously going to work better when you can feel it, as the more jarring or stimulating the physical effect is, the more profound the psychological effect is.

3) If all you can do is call me (and others) names, perhaps you should re-evaluate the strength of your arguments.

[edit on 6/23/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
It just amazes me how on how much dollars have been donated for cancer research, and other sickness’s for the last 40 years and the cures are not released to the public.

For example: Bristol Meyers Squib reported about 10 years ago that Iridium and Ruthenium are anti cancerous. Great! There is an answer, so how do you go about making a cure out of it?

Common sense would tell me: Make the particles small enough so that they can be used intravenously to those that have cancer right?

Instead our geniuses can’t figure out how to make monatomic elements to use to cure people of their maladies. What is even more ironic is that there are small supplement companies making Monatomic Iridium, Ruthenium, gold, silver and people are actually being helped like:
Noble Metals Research

So, if the Japanese have done studisd and determined that indeed Gold, and the above mentioned noble metals are in fact anti oxidants, then why are the pharmaceutical companies NOT using them to treat cancer?

I think they enjoy the free cash that they get every year from those well meaning fundraising companies that generate billions of free cash for “research”.

I would venture to say that in the last 40 years, about 20 Billion Dollars have been generated in free cash for “Research” that never get finished, and never gets to the hands of those that need it the most.

But the key in prevention and longevity is in noble metal elements.


Frustrating!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The business model of the Pharmaceuticals industry is pretty clear.

The medical industry is NOT interested in a cure for anything for it puts them out of business !!!

If they can't hold a patent on it, and own sole rights to it then they aren't interested.

This is why information about a cure is always suppressed.



The article I had referenced in my last thread with the schematic for all to learn from mentioned the patent pertaining to Dr. Kaali as well.

They had tried a similar experiment in a simple petri dish in observing the effects of low direct current upon the cellular wall of Aids viruses. Rendering them unnable to attach to a host. Which as you know is how the Aids virus proliferates.


In a remarkable discovery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, N.Y.C. in 1990, it was shown that a minute current (50 to 100 MICRO amperes) can alter outer protein layers of HIV virus in a petri dish so as to prevent its subsequent attachment to receptor sites. (SCIENCE NEWS, March 30, 1991 page 207.)


And what of the poster named smaaka who has already had success with the $20. device.

Poster smaaka says:


I would just like to add, for all you non believers, that I have been using the Bob Beck protocol (Blood electrification, Silver Colloid Injestion, Magnetic Pulsing, and Ozonated Water) and have COMPLETELY CURED MYSELF of HIV. My father has cured his fibromyalgia using this treatment as well. It is absolutely not a scam, all the information is given out for free just look up bob beck's research paper, its over 40 pages in a PDF file and it has instructions on how to build your own or you can buy one online from Companies like SOTA or Unleash Health. I have no reason to lie to you. Just try it, or at least watch Dr Beck 2 hour lecture on google videos.


And yes, one could recreate this on a PC but the advantage of a small circuit is the ability to wear the device on your body for extended amounts of time allowing more blood to pass by the device and subsequently to have treated.

Your blood being comprised of existing in a circulatory system. This device is very similar as to how your oil filter works on your car's engine.
Also as to why the oil filter is part of the engine's blood circulation system IMA. For it requires time to treat all of the Oil or Blood.

So unless you are willing to sit at your PC for hours on end, the portable circuit is slightly more convenient.

I have brought this up before. And as an engineer I think back that it often times requires someone outside of an industry to discover something revolutionary.

I mean just look at the Wright Brothers, they had no formal education but were merely self taught bicycle mechanics.

And they invented and built the first functional Airplane !

Not Issac Newton, Not Einstein, Not Maxx Plank .....

So though we are taught that our College Degrees make us more knowledgeable but it also compartmentalizes that knowledge by the paradigm established by those in which we are taught from.

That is why I put the schematic up.

More people need to see this information and challenge the medical industry who are only interested in earning their over inflated salaries and not in curing people.



Remember the Truth Shall Set You Free !!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Medical science has cured:

- Most bacterial infections
- Most viral infections
- Most parasitic infections
- Several forms of childhood leukemias



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kokatsi

Check Bedlam's answer to my post LITERALLY, please:

"But in that case, it seems like a perfect case for being nothing but a placebo reaction. If it was just below the threshold of sensation, it's hard to know that it's doing anything."

This is what I wrote in answer:

"Please re-read my sentence, Bedlam. In your haste, you understood the opposite of what I said.
I said sinus pathogens were cleared when I could FEEL the current going through my head, not the other way around!"

Bedlam's answer:

"No, I understood you. A dramatic placebo with a bad taste, a weird sensation, or some tangible side effect (like, for example, giving you some Niacin) typically has a stronger result than one that doesn't "do" anything."

Now look here, YOU DID WRITE the following sentence: "If it was just below the threshold of sensation, it's hard to know that it's doing anything."

It is clear to any reader that I meant my experience was ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. Your sentence means clearly that below the threshold it could be a placebo effect.


A reply to you which you will not read, having chosen to ignore me:

You state: This "audio card" thing only works when you turn it up high enough to feel a definite tingling sensation

I reply: That makes it MORE likely to be a placebo reaction, since if it was turned down below the threshold of perception, it wouldn't be clear that it was doing anything

You reply: No, no, you misunderstand me, I turned it up until I could feel it stinging and tingling

I reply: Of course, dramatic placebos that buzz, burn or give you definite "mediciney" feelings like Niacin ALWAYS work better as placebos because they're dramatic

I notice you sort of clip off the beginning to remove the context. Which in your case was "It doesn't work unless it stings" more or less. Of course that makes it "work" better.

Quit trying to Derrida-ize every response and just read it in context.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
i have a zapper for about two years now

u buy it on ebay, originally i found out about it from hulda clark books. its great for blood cells i think, i dont normally get ill, one time i felt flu symptoms and its all was gone after zappering. so i guess it is good machine.



new topics

top topics



 
272
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join