"AIDS cure suppressed for about 10 years"

[Capsid]

This therapy fails to take into account that HIV integrates into the host DNA as a provirus. How can electrification destroy the provirus? It would mean destroying every cell that contains it. The in vitro studies merely zap the free virus.

 

[Fnord]

"... If the process itself provides results then surely it's worth looking into. ... As it seems rather inexpensive to test I'm surprised that I haven't been able to find a record of someone attempting to duplicate anything involved with it.

Expression_man:

1) The process does not work as advertised!

2) The records of duplicative efforts do not exist because the process does not work!

It's quackery. This means that there is every reason to suggest that the process does not work, in spite of all the anecdotal 'evidence' to the contrary and the gullibility of fools.

Did I mention that the process does not work?

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

This sCAM looks pretty much like that of Hulda Clark.

Luke T.,

It's people like you and Fowlsound that give me hope for the human race - people who chose a rational, effective approach to survival when really up against it, rather than succumbing to the comfort of sCAM and religious nonsense as happens all too frequently. Kudos to you.

 

[Expression_man]

Were that the case then I'd expect to see documentation of at least one thorough experiment debunking the idea (maybe such a document exists somewhere but I haven't found it as of yet). Until it's put into practical experimentation everything in defense or opposition of it can only be based on anecdotes and theory.

You say it doesn't work.
He says it works.

Solution: Test

Edit: The only documentation I can find, regarding experimentation, seems to support the idea.

 

[burnvictim77]

Were that the case then I'd expect to see documentation of at least one thorough experiment debunking the idea (maybe such a document exists somewhere but I haven't found it as of yet). Until it's put into practical experimentation everything in defense or opposition of it can only be based on anecdotes and theory.

You say it doesn't work.
He says it works.

Solution: Test

Edit: The only documentation I can find, regarding experimentation, seems to support the idea.

Expression man:

If you inject bleach into your veinss, 1 cc, every two hours, for 3 weeks, this will cure your AIDS. Now, go prove me wrong. Because I've got plenty of data to indicate it works.

 

[Expression_man]

Expression man:

If you inject bleach into your views, 1 cc, every two hours, for 3 weeks, this will cure your AIDS. Now, go prove me wrong. Because I've got plenty of data to indicate it works.

1.) I don't have AIDS.

2.) What you describe would end up killing anyone who tried.

3.) That was a **** poor example.

4.) Where is your evidence?

 

[Fnord]

Expression man:

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. YOU claim that Blood Electrification works to cure AIDS, so YOU must provide the proof. Provide a link to your "evidence." We will examine it, and show you where it is in error.

I suggest that you study the articles at the end of these links:

Fallacies of Reason (Especially "Appeal to Ignorance")

How To Bash Pseudoscience


-Fnord-

 

[Expression_man]

What is this?

Half the people here have already presupposed a conclusion, it's that simple. It is clear that none of you are interested in tests or verification of any sort. Rather than getting down to testing anything you would rather try to poke holes in something you haven't seen in action.

No, no, **** this. I'm not representing anything. I'll certainly do my own research but I'm not about to get into a pointless argument. It's obvious what you're trying to do here. I wanted to see what people had to offer in regards to debunking the claims based on previously documented experiments but it's now clear that no one has anything to offer.

Right, that's all I wanted to know.

Edit: I'm out of this thread until someone posts something interesting regarding the original claims.

 

[burnvictim77]

What is this?

Half the people here have already presupposed a conclusion, it's that simple. It is clear that none of you are interested in tests or verification of any sort. Rather than getting down to testing anything you would rather try to poke holes in something you haven't seen in action.

No, no, **** this. I'm not representing anything. I'll certainly do my own research but I'm not about to get into a pointless argument. It's obvious what you're trying to do here. I wanted to see what people had to offer in regards to debunking the claims based on previously documented experiments but it's now clear that no one has anything to offer.

Right, that's all I wanted to know.

Edit: I'm out of this thread until someone posts something interesting regarding the original claims.

We all know enough about the actual science at hand to know this type of treatment cannot be effictive. It cannot do what it claims. Everyday, a quack can contrive a new miracle cure. Must I investigate every single one by doing a clinical test to know that they are still quacks? Or can I look at their claims and see how they make no sense?

 

[burnvictim77]

1.) I don't have AIDS.

2.) What you describe would end up killing anyone who tried.

3.) That was a **** poor example.

4.) Where is your evidence?

It's okay, I've got another miracle cure for you. Find someone with AIDS or any other viral infection. Rub a potato on their genitals. Burry it in the moonlight. Do this every night until the infection goes away. Guaranteed.

Where is YOUR evidence that it doesn't work?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Luke says "Find the error"



The United States patent office does not have the time, personel, or expertise to determine the efficacy of medical treatments. That is the job of the FDA. Patents are a federally enforced monopoly...nothing else.

This post points out an all too frequent myth, that patents are only granted for inventions that work, and that patented medical devices means working devices.

Whether something is a drug or a medical device, the manufacturer must present sufficient evidence to the FDA that it does what is claimed and is safe. The patent just keeps other people from producing copy cats infringing on profits.

 

[bruto]

What is this?

Half the people here have already presupposed a conclusion, it's that simple. It is clear that none of you are interested in tests or verification of any sort. Rather than getting down to testing anything you would rather try to poke holes in something you haven't seen in action.

No, no, **** this. I'm not representing anything. I'll certainly do my own research but I'm not about to get into a pointless argument. It's obvious what you're trying to do here. I wanted to see what people had to offer in regards to debunking the claims based on previously documented experiments but it's now clear that no one has anything to offer.

Right, that's all I wanted to know.

Edit: I'm out of this thread until someone posts something interesting regarding the original claims.

Expression man, you think the 'bleach in veins" analogy is preposterous, but why? You think so because even without much medical knowledge you can tell that this is a stupid idea and it will not work. Imagine, now, that you are a specialist in blood and viruses, and know a lot about these things, much more than you or I know. If to all of those people, the blood electrification routine looks as preposterous as bleach in the veins does to us, why on earth would they bother to do a test to debunk it? If it's bunk in ways that are open and obvious, it need not be debunked in detail. What you're suggesting here is that every unconventional claim that comes out of left field should be taken as a serious alternative until someone disproves it, no matter how seriously it violates know scientific principles. But if the people who developed blood electrification had found an actual cure that works, they would have the results, they would have the verification, and they could easily submit them for peer review and scrutiny. If they were doing serious science, worthy of serious review, the results you seek would be there for you to see - done by them.

 

[Expression_man]

You think so because even without much medical knowledge you can tell that this is a stupid idea and it will not work. Imagine, now, that you are a specialist in blood and viruses, and know a lot about these things, much more than you or I know. If to all of those people, the blood electrification routine looks as preposterous as bleach in the veins does to us, why on earth would they bother to do a test to debunk it? If it's bunk in ways that are open and obvious, it need not be debunked in detail. What you're suggesting here is that every unconventional claim that comes out of left field should be taken as a serious alternative until someone disproves it, no matter how seriously it violates know scientific principles.

Not at all. The technology has multiple patents on it and while they're in question it's still worth investigating if only to clear up the misconceptions involved with them.

Bleach and spuds, wtf are you people talking about?

 

[Questioninggeller]

In Randi's book "The Faith Healers," he refers to stories of Pat Robertson claiming to cure people's AIDS. Here we are 20 years later and Robertson is a very respected/powerful man among the right.

 

[Capsid]

Not at all. The technology has multiple patents on it and while they're in question it's still worth investigating if only to clear up the misconceptions involved with them.

Bleach and spuds, wtf are you people talking about?

Then it's up to the patentees to do the work to support the concept. If it's worth doing why haven't they provided the evidence?

 

[NeilC]

Not at all. The technology has multiple patents on it and while they're in question it's still worth investigating if only to clear up the misconceptions involved with them.

Bleach and spuds, wtf are you people talking about?

The reason people mention bleach and spuds is to demonstrate how anyone can make a claim and how some claims are so obviously wrong that the default stance on them is disbelief. I'm sure you default to disbelief about the potato cure and rightly so. This is because you know enough about biology to know that such a cure is extremely unlikely and not worthy of serious investigation. There is no reason to believe it would work and every reason to believe you are wasting your time. To people who know a lot more about biology than you, claims that might seem possible to you are equally far-fetched. Therefore if someone has a such a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it.

The patenting of an idea says nothing of it's validity so I think it would be apt to eliminate that from the discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll tell you why I can discard this crap out of hand. Because of this statement:

"BLOOD ELECTRIFICATION technology is one of the cures for HIV that was suppressed for a long time because the people responsible for suppressing the technology thought that money was more important than people, rather than thinking people are more important than money."

There are thousands of researchers who would pursue this technology if it had any evidence of effectiveness, and the only money that would matter would be the money from donations to do the research and that would have been pouring in. You would have to be an idiot to not notice how many people are building careers, not fortunes researching medicine and HIV-AIDS has no shortage of interested researchers.

 

[bruto]

Not at all. The technology has multiple patents on it and while they're in question it's still worth investigating if only to clear up the misconceptions involved with them.

Bleach and spuds, wtf are you people talking about?

You seem to have missed my point, so I hope you read (and re-read if necessary) Splossy's response above too. Bleach and spuds were brought up because anybody reasonable and sane can see that they're silly, and would consider it reasonable to dismiss them out of hand without wasting time on further testing. The fact that you or I may lack the medical knowledge to evaluate blood electrification out of hand does not change the fact that people who do have the medical knowledge appear to consider it as unpromising as bleach and spuds.

A patent does not make anything worth investigating if the thing appears to a reasonable and knowledgeable person as worthless. If you think patents make something workable, useful or reasonable, you're not only mistaken, but missing a treasure trove of humor. Do some searching on the internet some time for weird and silly patents.

The idea that the idea was suppressed because of corporate greed or cabal is common conspiracy theory crap. If someone could find, and patent, a cure for aids that actually worked, they could make a fortune even if they could cure it in a single visit for a dollar a pop; they'd be heroes and they'd almost certainly win a Nobel Prize in the bargain. The idea that nobody in the world is willing to take up and implement an actual, workable cure is silly. After all, the people who developed it could be doing that right now. If they got results that could stand up to peer review, they'd have it made no matter how strange and unconventional the treatment appears.

It's obvious from the material we've seen here on this thread that it was not suppressed. It was dismissed, and that's a very different thing.

 

[Fnord]

"... It is clear that none of you are interested in tests or verification of any sort. Rather than getting down to testing anything you would rather try to poke holes in something you haven't seen in action."

Do your tests. But first, get a degree in biology, immunology, and/or medical science. Then read up on the "Double Blind" method. Be sure to submit your research to a reputable publication for peer-group review. Expect to be derided and ridiculed. And if you receive the Nobel Prize, it will be posthumously awarded.

"I'm out of this thread until someone posts something interesting regarding the original claims."

Yay!

 

[Luke T.]

1.) 2.) What you describe would end up killing anyone who tried.

The reason the bleach and spuds examples were provided was because you seemed incapable of understanding why the electrical cure for AIDS was ridiculous, so they dumbed it down for you. The electrical cure would also kill anyone who tried it. See?

3.) That was a **** poor example.

And so is the electrical cure for AIDS.

4.) Where is your evidence?

The very question you should be asking about the electrical cure. Where are the cured patients?