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.
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...
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
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!
The vaccine is certainly not hurting Merck's profits, more like a volcano insurance salesman to me.
As for the chemotherapy, I am sorry I just did a quick search. Maybe you can dazzle me with some positive chemotherapy numbers?
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
So, in other words, you have no real way to explain why my reasoning is incorrect? Neat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Electricity and radio waves in healing are Western findings, repeatable etc.
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.
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
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.
Wegener was attacked when he proposed that the continents fit together. Now he is school material. How would you have reacted back then?
How do you react if you experience something you cannot explain?
Do you simply say it does not exist?
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.
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.
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]
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.)
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.
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.