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: 18
272
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


With all of the financial resources flowing through the medical industry in the form of research.

Unfortunately Medical Science, after 25 years has not provided a cure for AIDS AND furthermore, the current work around solution as provided by Medical Science is once again, to sell to those desperate to save their lives a very costly batch of various pharmaceuticals that contribute to the bottom line profits of the major Pharmaceutical Corporations.

If something hasn't proven to provide a solution and/or results.
Just perhaps it is time to investigate alternatives ?

And Hence the nature and topic of this Thread.





posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Unfortunately, pouring money into science doesn't equate to a faster answer. That's what people continue to misunderstand. Science isn't a business. The rate limiting step is not income, but brain-power. If a laboratory has limitless resources, but is facing a seemingly insurmountable problem, it's still going to take long, long time to come up with an answer.

As for exploring alternative possibilities, I am all for that. I whole-heartedly support ALL avenues of research when it comes to disease cures. What I do NOT support is people claiming they have a cure without providing any data, any research, or any science. At all.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


VneZonyDostupa, the 3 researchers of Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine eventually published their data at a medical journal.

But it was a relatively obscure journal with low circulation at the time.

Citation is as follows:

Surg Technol Int. 1996;5:75-9.

Biocompatible electric current attenuates HIV infectivity.

Lyman WD, Merkatz IR, Kaali SG.

Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

PMID: 15858720 [PubMed]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15858720

or the table of contents of the issue here, it's the 3rd from bottom to top for fast location.
www.ump.com/05-Surgical-Overview.htm



Biocompatible Electric Current Attenuates HIV Infectivity
William D. Lyman, Ph.D., Irwin R. Merkatz, M.D., Steven G. Kaali, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY


It is not clear whether the editorial board of the journal at the time in 1996 had him or changed since, but the current board does have Steven G. Kaali among the editors.

You can check the editorial board at the bottom of "Surgical Technology International" journal website here

www.ump.com


Steven G. Kaali, M.D., F.A.C.O.G.
New York, New York


According to Google Scholar, it was cited only 1 time.

Some honest independent philanthropist has to step up with courage to provide funding, money, to replicate and revive interest in this, it deserves more than only 1 citation.

If you couple Baxter with that, 1 citation and no press or media attention since, this could get buried in the literature, even if a legitimate method of therapy.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


I've read this study before. This is the danger of laymen reading too much i nto scientific papers. No where in this study does it claim electric current can treat HIV in vivo. All it shows is that a given current alters the charge on the lipid capsule, which attenuates (that is, alters or weakens) the viruses ability to infect cell cultures. They never provide data on effectiveness, however, and offer little in the way of reproducibility. They have no data showing this same effect in vivo, and in fact, predict that it WOULDN'T work in vivo, as a complete living system would prevent a sustained electric current from being applied to the most common sites of HIV-T cell fusion.


[edit on 6/24/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Electrical gaget quackery has been around for over 100 years. You can buy one of those machines on Ebay for $50. Sad, when people try and take advantage of the sick like that.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigern
What the hell, I think I'm going to go ahead and order the machine. This is probably a stupid question but they say it kills parasites, bacteria, etc. so would this thing clear up warts?


Scientific answer: nope.

Warts are caused by one of several different types of viruses. Salycilic acid preparations (asprin) are the most effective, though in some cases they have to be surgically removed:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Dear RogerT

Just a FYI I am a volunteer at an AIDS Hospice and I am having this made www.sharinghealth.com...
It will take a while but I will post when we have tested it and let you know the results.

Best Regards Paul



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I have a "Zapper".
I have used it for several years.

What else does it kill?
It kills the mouth bacteria that give you bad breath.
Use the zapper - no more bad breath.

Tens is not the same thing.
With the zapper you may not feel anything.
If you are sensitive, you might feel a slight vibration.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
VneZonyDostupa, the 3 researchers of Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine eventually published their data at a medical journal.

But it was a relatively obscure journal with low circulation at the time.


...with less rigorous standards for research statistics.


It is not clear whether the editorial board of the journal at the time in 1996 had him or changed since, but the current board does have Steven G. Kaali among the editors.


Editorial boards change frequently -- people get busy and find that the don't have time to do all the reading and editing required to be on the editorial board. Someone leaving a board isn't that unusual, particularly if new research projects crop up.


According to Google Scholar, it was cited only 1 time.


Not unusual. Papers in small publications are seldom cited because they're seldom read.


Some honest independent philanthropist has to step up with courage to provide funding, money, to replicate and revive interest in this, it deserves more than only 1 citation.


I'm not sure it does. There's over 5,000 papers and patents on HIV, and the use of electricity to attenuate the virus and develop vaccines. There's 22 somewhat-similar studies.

Kaali and Merkatz have continued to publish, doing a lot of work in human reproduction. Lyman has continued his work with HIV. I see that all have had their research funded by grants and other sources.

So *they* did not see a reason to revisit this paper or repeat the research. And they, themselves, are not citing their own paper.

Lack of a philanthropist doesn't stop a scientist from doing research that they REALLY want to do.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by nh_ee
 


Unfortunately, pouring money into science doesn't equate to a faster answer. That's what people continue to misunderstand. Science isn't a business. The rate limiting step is not income, but brain-power. If a laboratory has limitless resources, but is facing a seemingly insurmountable problem, it's still going to take long, long time to come up with an answer.


What people continue to misunderstand is that in a monetary system EVERYTHING is a business, and if it isn't a business then the consumerism isn't interested...

By definition a business is an: Economic system in which goods and services are exchanged for one another or money, on the basis of their perceived worth. Every business requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can be sold at profit on a consistent basis.

Now while I will agree that science shouldn't be a business it certainly falls under the definition of a business. When the research is the "goods and services" that pharmaceutical corporations need to legally push their drugs onto the market, that research is then "exchanged" for "money" on the basis that the research is worth quite a bit of money. (as long as it is positive research :lol


The best part about all this is the fact that pharmaceuticals don't have to publish all the negative studies just the ones that make their product look marketable. All that abating brain-power in science finds its way over to the "business management" or "criminal justice" degree's because they are a LOT easier to obtain, and the bottom line is not education in a monetary system (just like we hopefully learned) it is money. C's get degree's and your out that door making MONEY!!!

Every once in a while the exception to the rule comes along and they figure out that vitamin C cures scurvy or something to that effect. Those are great and make me happy, but I will just stick to nutrition and "let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food" ~Hippocrates. When it comes to acute problems I will come see the dr., but they are ill equipped to handle chronic problems....

On a lesser note "Warts are caused by one of several different types of viruses." From what I read warts are attributed to one of the 100 or so HPVirus's, but don't bother getting the vaccine cause it doesn't cover those, just the two allegedly associated with cervical cancer.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by arpanet]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by arpanet
 


Arpanet, you're confusing industrial research with basic science research. Almost every single drug, therapy, and vaccine has its roots in a graduate student thesis or basic science laboratory at a university. Once these drugs are discovered, the pharmaceutical companies buy the patents and do the clinical testing. THIS is where the bias and lack of publishing comes in. The idea that science in general is a "business" shows a complete lack of understanding of how university research works. In that setting, the mantra is "publish or perish". This doesn't mean selling drugs or patents, it means continuing to do novel research. The vast majority of basic science research doesn't produce a patentable device or drug. Most of it is meant to further our understanding of medicine, biology, biochemistry, etc.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Dostupa, I can talk about whatever part of "medical science" I want, whether it be the industrial research or university research, because the topic being discussed is simply "medical science" and that doesn't make me the confused one in this equation. Just because you have chosen to talk about the "basic science research" aspect of medical science doesn't make you confused that we are still talking about medical science does it?

Once these drugs are discovered, the pharmaceutical companies buy the patents and do the clinical testing. THIS is where the bias and lack of publishing comes in.

I believe you are under the impression that this juncture is where pharmaceutical companies start pumping money into the research, and that universities providing "basic science research" are not involved in the business. I am afraid pharmaceuticals fund even the "basic science research" by funding the universities too. For instance Pfizer granted Stanford $3 million in this year alone. Now the naive would assume that this is good old corporate America looking out for our education or some crap to that extent, but if you look at the track record of corporations you will find that they don't give a damn about the people. The reason why Pharma. spends millions on universities is the same reason they spend millions on advertising, because they are looking for the return investment which is almost always larger than the initial investment. (how is that for business 101)

The idea that science in general is a "business" shows a complete lack of understanding of how university research works.

I think the only complete lack of understanding is the "business" aspect of university research on your part.


The vast majority of basic science research doesn't produce a patentable device or drug. Most of it is meant to further our understanding of medicine, biology, biochemistry, etc.


That is great in theory but if this were true then corporations like Pfizer would be pissing their money away, and if we know anything about corporations is that they don't value losing money
So I am afraid your words are severely deafened by the actions of pharmaceutical interests....



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpanet
Dostupa, I can talk about whatever part of "medical science" I want, whether it be the industrial research or university research, because the topic being discussed is simply "medical science" and that doesn't make me the confused one in this equation. Just because you have chosen to talk about the "basic science research" aspect of medical science doesn't make you confused that we are still talking about medical science does it?


Basic science research is where drugs are created. This thread is about medical science research, which is an incorrect term. There is no such thing as "medical science research". There is basic science research, and clinical research. That was the point I was making.



I believe you are under the impression that this juncture is where pharmaceutical companies start pumping money into the research, and that universities providing "basic science research" are not involved in the business. I am afraid pharmaceuticals fund even the "basic science research" by funding the universities too. For instance Pfizer granted Stanford $3 million in this year alone.


Just to put things in perspective, a $1 million NIH grant for basic research is considered a small grant which is not enough for a year of work in a decent university level lab. If all you can come up with is a single $3 million grant, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed when you look into what a small amount of research dollars that is.



I think the only complete lack of understanding is the "business" aspect of university research on your part.


Really? Can you point to any specific point, or are these more of you "last ditch ad hominems"? I've pointed out specific statements of yours anytime I've criticized your understanding. It would be nice if you would do the same, unless they truly are just baseless name-calling.



That is great in theory but if this were true then corporations like Pfizer would be pissing their money away, and if we know anything about corporations is that they don't value losing money
So I am afraid your words are severely deafened by the actions of pharmaceutical interests....


The largest expense in the pharmaceutical industry is research and development of drugs that never reach market. More drugs reach clinical testing than succeed clinical testing. Of course, all the money spent on those drugs is seen as "wasted" to us, but to Pharma, it is an investment. If you have ten potential new drugs, you spend $500 million testing all of them, and only one succeeds, that might seem to be a bad investment. But when a single drug can make on the order of tens of billions in it's patent exlcusivity lifetime, it's actually quite a nice investment.

Again, please, for the sake of future arguments, do some basic research of clinical testing and drug development.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Basic science research is where drugs are created. This thread is about medical science research, which is an incorrect term. There is no such thing as "medical science research". There is basic science research, and clinical research. That was the point I was making.


I understand the point you were making, but the term we are using to encompass both basic science research and clinical research for medicine is: medical science. That being the science that is involved in medicine, and just because you think this is an incorrect term doesn't mean it is...


Just to put things in perspective, a $1 million NIH grant for basic research is considered a small grant which is not enough for a year of work in a decent university level lab. If all you can come up with is a single $3 million grant, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed when you look into what a small amount of research dollars that is.


That is great but $1 million is smaller than $3 million (last time I checked) and the $3 million is just for this year so far. Now I know that actually looking at the points doesn't help your Bill o'Reily dance around the subject but I am going to stop replying if your going to continue missing the obvious points to ridicule examples. The $3 million is an example, the main point is that pharmaceuticals fund Universities is that understood?


Really? Can you point to any specific point, or are these more of you "last ditch ad hominems"? I've pointed out specific statements of yours anytime I've criticized your understanding. It would be nice if you would do the same, unless they truly are just baseless name-calling.


My apologies I wasn't aware that you were blind to the "elephant in the living room" as my whole last post was about your lack of understanding that even basic science research is funded by pharmaceutical corporations constituting a business transaction and thereby making "medical science" in both aspects of research a business. That is what this whole conversation has been about mind you.


The largest expense in the pharmaceutical industry is research and development of drugs that never reach market. More drugs reach clinical testing than succeed clinical testing. Of course, all the money spent on those drugs is seen as "wasted" to us, but to Pharma, it is an investment. If you have ten potential new drugs, you spend $500 million testing all of them, and only one succeeds, that might seem to be a bad investment. But when a single drug can make on the order of tens of billions in it's patent exlcusivity lifetime, it's actually quite a nice investment.


Again this is great stuff if only it pertained to what I was actually talking about. Nobody is arguing about the largest expense of pharmaceuticals, or anything you just covered about R&D. The only thing that could pertain to what I was talking about would be the return investment except I was talking about the return investment for funding universities where as your talking about return investments for R&D for which I already covered in the post where you thought I was confused...

The bottom line being that pharmaceuticals invest in every aspect of "medical science" whether it be industrial, universities, medical journals, etc... not because it is the right thing to do, but because they are looking for the return investment. Thus by definition making a business out of science.

As for your cute comments about me needing to do more research before I talk, the only thing I have to say is that a true master acknowledges the fact that he will always be a student. You think you have things figured out, and while you stop learning; things are changing and your left behind. I am constantly learning (even from you) and forever expanding my knowledge, and while what you say about me needing more research might be true I would suggest you take a look in the mirror and apply...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpanet
I understand the point you were making, but the term we are using to encompass both basic science research and clinical research for medicine is: medical science. That being the science that is involved in medicine, and just because you think this is an incorrect term doesn't mean it is...


If you're trying to make incorrect, sweeping generalizations, then yes, calling it "medical science" would be fine. Similarly, I could call all the work I do "medical practice", but that would also be incorrect. I perform research, I treat patients, I test new therapies, and I train new student doctors. Using an umbrella term only waters the argument down. Why do you want to do that?



That is great but $1 million is smaller than $3 million (last time I checked) and the $3 million is just for this year so far. Now I know that actually looking at the points doesn't help your Bill o'Reily dance around the subject but I am going to stop replying if your going to continue missing the obvious points to ridicule examples. The $3 million is an example, the main point is that pharmaceuticals fund Universities is that understood?


You're missing my point. Let's say the university...not a single lab, but the UNIVERSITY, received $3 million that year from Pharma. The lab I did some of my graduate research in receive $5 million from the DoD, $3 million from the NIH and $500,000 from the NSF every year. That's normal for a single, mid to large sized lab. An average sized university (Boston U, U Maryland, Brown, etc.) has dozens, if not over one hundred, basic science labs. Do you see now how miniscule that $3 million is? It wouldn't support a decent lab for a year, let alone several. It's a drop in the bucket. Most likely, it was a token donation in return for a few drug trials the university hospital had agreed to run, which will cost more than $3 million anyways.



My apologies I wasn't aware that you were blind to the "elephant in the living room" as my whole last post was about your lack of understanding that even basic science research is funded by pharmaceutical corporations constituting a business transaction and thereby making "medical science" in both aspects of research a business. That is what this whole conversation has been about mind you.


Basic science research is rarely funded by pharmaceutical industries. They tend to fund novel drug searches and high-throughput exploratory studies. They don't care too much for enzyme and genetic studies, as they can benefit from this work once it's in the public domain without putting any money into the project.



Again this is great stuff if only it pertained to what I was actually talking about. Nobody is arguing about the largest expense of pharmaceuticals, or anything you just covered about R&D. The only thing that could pertain to what I was talking about would be the return investment except I was talking about the return investment for funding universities where as your talking about return investments for R&D for which I already covered in the post where you thought I was confused...


Pharma companies don't fund universities. I don't know how else to explain this to you. The main source of influence pharma companies have is in educating doctors, not in pushing basic science research in one direction or the other. That's why most universities are now forcing doctors to file conflict of financial interest papers, and are banning pharm reps from any hospital that educates students. I know that the two hospitals I work in are off-limits to pharm reps, as we have students rotating through constantly. It's awfully nice not to have to worry about salesmen.


The bottom line being that pharmaceuticals invest in every aspect of "medical science" whether it be industrial, universities, medical journals, etc... not because it is the right thing to do, but because they are looking for the return investment. Thus by definition making a business out of science.


This is absolutely true, you're just attacking the wrong target. Pharma companies have little to no influence in basic science research. Once it gets to clinical trials, THAT is where you see pharma influence.


As for your cute comments about me needing to do more research before I talk, the only thing I have to say is that a true master acknowledges the fact that he will always be a student. You think you have things figured out, and while you stop learning; things are changing and your left behind. I am constantly learning (even from you) and forever expanding my knowledge, and while what you say about me needing more research might be true I would suggest you take a look in the mirror and apply...


I've never said I knew it all. I just know when you are blatantly wrong.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 



"The bottom line being that pharmaceuticals invest in every aspect of "medical science" whether it be industrial, universities, medical journals, etc... not because it is the right thing to do, but because they are looking for the return investment. Thus by definition making a business out of science."

This was the whole point I was arguing! That science is a business plain and simple. So I misunderstand how I am blatantly wrong? I will agree that I overestimated pharma's grasp on basic science research, and I can admit when I am wrong. Other than that you finally agreed to what I was saying in the first place




This is absolutely true, you're just attacking the wrong target. Pharma companies have little to no influence in basic science research. Once it gets to clinical trials, THAT is where you see pharma influence.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by arpanet
 


Unfortunately, we don't agree. You continue to make the same sweeping statement that implies the pharmaceutical industry has the same level of influence at all points in the research and education chain. This is untrue, and is an unfair generalization.



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 

I am convinced that you are in fact Bill o' Reilly from fox news. Only Bill could completely miss the originating argument, just to disagree with something that I even admitted to being wrong about. The originating argument was about science being business to which you said it wasn't, I said it was, we argued, and you finally admitted being wrong:


The bottom line being that pharmaceuticals invest in every aspect of "medical science" whether it be industrial, universities, medical journals, etc... not because it is the right thing to do, but because they are looking for the return investment. Thus by definition making a business out of science.

This is absolutely true, you're just attacking the wrong target. Pharma companies have little to no influence in basic science research. Once it gets to clinical trials, THAT is where you see pharma influence.


Your the only one still going on about pharma's influence, and it is just to cover up the fact that you are wrong about science being a business...


Poor false ego...



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by arpanet
 


I don't see how you can post two contradictory ideas, and claim they "prove your point".

Cognitive dissonance much?



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Not saying...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.nature.com...

Arh, but wonder why this - mentioned in pubmed and nature - still have no coverage???

Or these findings are also anecdotal - but hey - this will also be dismissed the pro's.



new topics

top topics



 
272
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join