It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Astonishing Find - Magnets Lower Blood Viscosity !!!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:32 PM

What is a "boffin" ??????

It's a little furry humanoid, looks something like a skinny Gwarpy. They obtain information like this for us, generally at the cost of their lives.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:37 PM

Sorry, but what would you call it, iron particle therapy? This would in all practical terms be called magnetic therapy or implications as such.

Magnets probably do make a difference in many applications for the human body but it would be nice if there were some good solid peer reviewed studies of the claims to enlighten the masses.

Magnetic therapy would seem to imply the magnetic field was therapeutic per se, it has no effect without the nanoparticulate iron. It would probably be called something like immune modulated disruptive oncolysis, only they'd try to make an acronym out of it.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 02:54 PM


in any case a survey found aryan white people with blond hair and blue eyes to be more trustworthy then people who were the opposite.This explains why the majority of adverts feature blond people and also the saying blondes have more fun.

So, nu?

That's because Aryan white people with blond hair and blue eyes ARE more trustworthy. Constipated and unpleasant, but trustworthy.

What you really want are Irish-Native American breeds with big beards and dark reddish-brown hair. We're more lovable. But not photogenic, alas.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 04:20 PM



the research was a success and thus covered up by "Big Pharma BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CONSUMABLE.
and cannot be patented.

magnets last virtually forever.just imagine wearing magnets which lower blood viscosity
instead of taking CONSUMABLE pills WITH SIDE EFFECTS which cost money forever untill you are dead.

look at diabetes patients a guaranteed cash cow.

just go to ebay and you can get 20 tesla range magnets for $8 or less.


The notion that you cannot patent a non-consumable is a good example of one of your patent falsehoods. Have you ever heard of the medical device industry? Some of its $100+ billion a year in sales in the US comes from just the type of non-consumables you're claiming can't be patented,

The two licensing agreements that produced the most revenue for Temple were the licensing of a cancer therapeutic developed at Temple’s Fels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology to Newtown, Pa.-based Onconova Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:ONTX), which went public in July; and the licensing of crude oil pipeline flow technology developed by Physics Professor Rongjia Tao to Save the World Air Inc. (OTCBB:ZERO)


I'm honestly interested in this subject, and I'm not joking when I say that I love magnets. I also have no great love for "Big Pharma" and I don't partake in "mainstream media." If this magnet deal turned out to work, I would be thrilled. I like seeing innovative researchers succeed and I always enjoy seeing new medical technologies come to fruition.

you medical device industry link goes to ebay ????????

proof it has been suppressed? they would hardly leave proof lying around but you have just supplied it.

you just supplied the proof.i am are the author of your own defeat.

two licensing agreements that produced the most revenue for Temple were the licensing of a cancer therapeutic developed at Temple’s Fels Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Biology to Newtown, Pa.-based Onconova Therapeutics Inc...

they have been removed from a non consumable non money making magnets which would ruin profits for big pharma to anther cancer drug which will not work like all the previous cancer drugs but which with marketing/bribery/research fraud/bury the negative studies... will make billions for big pharma after all if it does not work they can just raise their hands and say tough while getting billions in profit in the meantime.

classic tactic by big phamma.reassignment away from anything that threatens their profits to something else.

the proof is above.

Wow. Where to begin? You continue flinging around absurdities and paranoia while dodging the fact that you have been caught lying repeatedly. First, I did not provide a link to eBay. I provided a link to the FDA's page on medical devices (since the FDA is the agency in charge of regulating this industry) so that you can see for yourself that it is not only possible, but potentially extremely profitable, to patent and sell medical "non-consumables." I also provided a link to the website of a company that produces two awesome, innovative, non-consumable medical devices that rely completely on magnets. Did you perhaps still have eBay open after you were looking up how much you can buy magnets for?

In my follow-up post I showed that Tao and Huang, the (Asian, non-blonde, non-blue-eyed, older-than-21) researchers mentioned in your original post, actually did publish their paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Since then, it seems that they have moved on to different projects, but other researchers have continued looking into the subject. Another paper about using magnetic fields to alter blood viscosity was just published in September 2013. Unfortunately (and I really do think it is unfortunate - I would like to see this technology work) the latest research seems to indicate that the treatment is not very effective in vivo.

The cancer therapeutic developed at Temple has nothing to do with Tao and Huang's research. It was mentioned as the first of two licensing agreements that produced the most revenue for Temple University in the 2012-13 year. The second of these two was the licensing of crude oil pipeline flow technology developed by Rongjia Tao. I included this information to show that Tao hasn't been bumped off and is actually continuing to excel in his career. You either misread or intentionally twisted the words of the article and asserted that "Big Pharma" reassigned Tao and Huang to work on a cancer drug. This is not the case.

You claim to know that the amazing research of these mysterious 21-year-old Aryan boffins has succeeded and been suppressed. So far you have not even been able to supply any evidence - not even a link to an article on Natural News - that these two people even exist, let alone that they have done research that has been covered up. You seem to be either misrepresenting the facts of what actually occurred (re: Tao and Huang's research) or just spinning a yarn. If there has truly been a massive coverup ("Big Pharma" does not own the internet, so I would be surprised if they were able to wipe literally every trace of this out of existence, but stranger things have happened), then I want to know where you are getting the information from.

I don't even want to delve into your apparent white supremacy, but since you're quoting a "study," I'll quote one back at you, and even provide the source: brown-eyed faces are perceived as more trustworthy than blue-eyed ones! See? It must be the absolute, indisputable truth.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:08 PM

1) where did i tell people or anyone to stop their medications?

tell us.we demand it.which post?

I didn't say that. I said you told people their medications were poisons pushed by Big Pharma. Desperate people deduce that they shouldn't take them all by themselves. Unless there are differing opinions offered, which is what we (the others that have replied + me) are doing. This insures your dangerous statements are taken as they should be - an opinion, not a fact.

And "We" demand it??? Actually, only you. Others are capable of comprehending what I said.

2) could you us to which site i directed any such person and TOLD them to buy x,y,or z.

I didn't. I stated you promote these things, and give links to support it from the sites. Desperate people take it on themselves to believe you. Once again, unless a differing reasoned opinion is offered to make them question your 'facts'.

So you have been exposed in your crude attempts to besmirch me and while you pretend to be "so concerned" about the safety of others could you explain the annual death rate of 240000 from adverse drug reactions in America alone courtesy of big pharma.

EXPOSED??? I dare say that is only your opinion again running away with you.

I'll wait for you to offer the proof of your claim, with all factors considered (I don't doubt the figure - even though I should - but I do doubt your explanation of the reasoning behind it). Be sure to include the circumstances of each case so we can weed out the improperly-prescribed and the over / under dosed cases and get that final number of properly-applied medications that still caused the reactions. Now, I don't doubt that happens. Even penicillin (the first and a NATURAL antibiotic) kills people.

Be sure to include the TOTAL numbers of people that were treated properly without incident so a statistical comparison can be made AFTER you weed out the situations noted above (which would NOT be the fault of Big Pharma but the individual prescribing physician, or the patient themselves).

Is there adverse drug reactions? OF COURSE. Are there side effects to a lot of medications. OF COURSE.

But are there medications proven to treat and cure and allieve symptoms and improve peoples lives? OF COURSE.

And are there alternative treatments that should be researched?? OF COURSE!!!

Should the entire medical industry be condemned because the above is true??? NO. Take each medication and each treatment offered and investigate it from all perspectives. You don't have to trust the 'big pharma' offerings, but that does not instill trust in the alternatives either.

But in the many many posts the OP presents, with a different speculative treatment, and the same paranoid attack on the pharmaceutical industry / independent researchers / government researchers / medical university researchers (all diverse separate entities and countries and industries lumped together as one controlled unit), the OP presents not one shread of proof for the attacks and allegations.

I will present proof that this is NOT the case. It's in the OP's post history - almost every one of them. If the army of Big Pharma was out squashing the reports of amazing cures being hidden from us, the shills and government operatives stalking her would have found her years ago and silenced this dangerous affront to their power. We would have never known of beckybecky, but yet, here she is again.

to which i answer :-

Ive always knew vaccines were dangerous drugs but natural news goes ahead and confirms that fact.

The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

its funny that the people who rally behind and promote and force the general public to get vaccincations are always the ones who never take it? thats because they know vaccines are pseudoscience and that it causes problems like autism,blindness,diabtese and more debilitating disease.

Vaccines are a fraud and in november the us congress's oversight and hearing comittee will hold a hearing on the US national vaccine injury compensation act which bars vaccine injured people from suing vaccine manufactures.

if vaccines are so safe why cant the public sue them? easy because those who make vaccines run the government and the education department and the hospitals and the science journals, its the wolf guarding the chicken hen they big pharma pay for the studies pay for the government pay for the medical school they control the knowledge that youre allowed to get on vaccine safety.

You indict all vaccines with an example of ONE. And you offer a quote, severely dated (1981 is ancient when it comes to medical science), from a biased 'natural news site' that provides no supporting evidence except their word. Why the HELL should we trust them over anyone else???

I also gather you believe that there is NO vaccine that has ever saved a life. I beg to differ with that.

obliviously your other pals were not having much luck so you have been wheeled out under the pretense of being sounding reasonable and calling other people's sanity into question just because they are exposing the dirty tricks of you and your masters.

A delusional angry response with NO substance. Of course, I expected to be called a shill, happens everytime I try to put some reason into your discussions.

And how did you know I had to be wheeled around? Why so mad at me? I gots them blue eyes and blond hair so you shoud TRUST me....

And could you explain this bribery while you at it.Can't wait for your excuses and evasions.

Big Pharma spent $2 674 746 491 on Lobbying from 1998 to 2013.
That is enough money to give 6 million dollars to each congress member of which there are 534.

I'll wait till you explain it - include list of corporations that are making those contributions with the supporting links. Not just a general 'big pharma' and word of beckybecky.

I have no objections with you making us aware of developing medical technologies and treatments, just with your incessant broad-sweeping attacks against an entire industry which you treat as some monolithic entity, when in reality it is many independent entities, some in cooperation, and some in direct competition with each other.

And further promote the 'alternative' INDUSTRY (and don't doubt it IS an industry) that has the same faults and is headed by the same types of greedy out-for-a-buck businesspeople that you can find in almost every walk of life.

There is a middle ground but you refuse to see it. Don't just start some medicine because your doctor says you need it, do your own research. And don't dump all your medicines for some vitamins and a mag braclet because beckybecky says it's a better and safer choice.

Some medicines are good. SO are some alternative healthy treatments. Both are supported by well-intentioned people trying to do the right thing. But both are pushed by people motivated by profits and self-interest. You can't indict one without acknowledging the other has its issues too. It's not all-or-nothing - except to beckybecky.
edit on 3-11-2013 by lakesidepark because: corrections and clarifications

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by beckybecky

Thought our said 'Medical Experts', would have learned this when using an MRI on a patient??

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 06:55 PM

reply to post by beckybecky

Thought our said 'Medical Experts', would have learned this when using an MRI on a patient??

WHOA!!! A good point. If it was as simple to decrease blood viscosity by inducing a magnetic field around the body, then thousands would die every year from bleedouts induced by MRI.

Then again, thousands of cancers would disappear when the docs used the MRI to look for them wippee! 'Where did that tumor go? must have been the humhumhumhumhumhumhumhum
that did it!

But don't hold your breath, beckybecky will offer a number of people killed by MRI each year I'm sure, along with the tumors that disappeared. Referenced by '' website.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:33 PM

reply to post by beckybecky

Thought our said 'Medical Experts', would have learned this when using an MRI on a patient??

Likely not, for several reasons. One, you have to have a rheometer to measure blood viscosity, and you have to have it on hand. Because the effects (if they are replicable) will wear off in two hours. You won't have time to get it to another lab. And BV measurements aren't all that common, so it's unlikely in the extreme any hospital would have one.

Two, in an MRI machine, you have a big chunk of your body in there. The only way you get this effect is if you isolate one vein or artery, and induce a field along the blood vessel. It doesn't work and/or undoes the changes if the blood is running in all directions or both forward and backwards in the field. So, for any MRI, you're going to basically undo the alterations as fast as you do them.

Another thing to ask, and I'll drop it here, is if the effect is pretty much only because it causes more stacking of RBCs in rouleaux, then aren't you increasing the risk of plugging small capillaries? It might decrease viscosity in large vessels, but it does so by making chunky blood. After all, you get a similar effect by giving someone the wrong blood type. It's also why diabetics lose toes. It's called "microvascular occlusion", and rouleaux formations make that worse.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by Bedlam

From that post, I learned something, and actually understand why it only works in vitro but cannot be applied effectively in vivo. In fact that sounds like it would be detrimental!

It sounds like it is actually not a 'blood thinner' effect but more of a 'magnetic coagulation' effect.

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:04 PM
reply to post by AbleEndangered

The placebo (nocebo) effect is very real, it is all in your mind, in any case it was Paracelsus that started the use of magnets in medicine (at least in the West), this was in part the starting point for Mesmer for hypnosis and the theories about animal magnetism in a society that was slowly coming out of attributing everything to the spiritual world. The magnets mentioned in the article are radically larger...

posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 08:10 PM

reply to post by Bedlam

From that post, I learned something, and actually understand why it only works in vitro but cannot be applied effectively in vivo. In fact that sounds like it would be detrimental!

It sounds like it is actually not a 'blood thinner' effect but more of a 'magnetic coagulation' effect.

Well, in a way, the term "blood thinner" is very misleading. While some anti-platelet agents like aspirin or plavix DO change the actual blood viscosity a tiny amount, mostly what they do is prevent clotting. Same with anti-coagulants like Warfarin, only I don't think Warfarin changes BV at all. But in popular vernacular, they're called blood thinners when they're actually not. Now, there are a number of drugs and supplements that really DO change the viscosity of blood. Trental is one (sp?), you can lower it with serrapeptase and pretty much anything that reduces inflammatory proteins lowers BV, so getting your homocysteine down works. Also, if you get your A1C down it helps.

The paper claims to reduce viscosity by causing rouleaux formation. I'm not sure that's an unalloyed blessing. Also, they claim that "it lines up the cells in one direction", but that's only going to last a split second, the instant they encounter turbulent flow, their orientation will randomize. So if the effect exists at all, it's likely because it lined up the cells in such a way that encouraged rouleaux formation. And yeah, in a sense that will reduce BV, but the cost is that it causes microvascular occlusion to increase.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in