http://www.physorg.com/news63457049.html
Unless the discovery makes millions for the research institute in the way of a patentable pill it will not happen! Fertalizers, Nicoteen pesticides, and G.M. Foods are untouchables as well as mamagrams and tobacco. There is some hope for an electronic cure, but nobody"s looking!
It"s a sad, sad picture out there!
E. L. Earnhardt
If cancer is worth that much, imagine how much a cure for aging would be worth.
There's good reason here to encourage your governments to support anti-cancer research. Your economy will reap huge dividends when it's cured, and each partner speeds the cure.
There's good reason here to encourage your governments to support anti-cancer research. Your economy will reap huge dividends when it's cured, and each partner speeds the cure.
And Relay for Life is a good way to spend some time too.. every little bit helps guys..
Prevention-'the common cold'-take rest only! Pass it on!!
Firstly, shouldn't this be in the 'Medicine and Health News' section.
Secondly, I do agree that it would be a nice cure to find, and is indeed worth alot of money, but unfortunately this world is already overpopulated, and cancer kills an awful lot of people, which is actually in some way 'good', due to keeping our numbers in check, much like aids and such. However, I do think such lines of logic can be ignored, if countries start to impose proper birth control on their populations. Europe has a pretty low birthrate, but is offset massively by immigration. China is doing good with it's 1 child policy, and is an example to us all. Really, it's 3rd world countries which have the massive birthrates still. The West has learnt to control it's birthrates. Even the US is only 2.1 children on average per family. Albeit I think that an anti-ageing cure would have serious consequences. We'd literally need to restructure whole countries. Plus, there are ethical and moral issues raised about allowing immortality.
Secondly, I do agree that it would be a nice cure to find, and is indeed worth alot of money, but unfortunately this world is already overpopulated, and cancer kills an awful lot of people, which is actually in some way 'good', due to keeping our numbers in check, much like aids and such. However, I do think such lines of logic can be ignored, if countries start to impose proper birth control on their populations. Europe has a pretty low birthrate, but is offset massively by immigration. China is doing good with it's 1 child policy, and is an example to us all. Really, it's 3rd world countries which have the massive birthrates still. The West has learnt to control it's birthrates. Even the US is only 2.1 children on average per family. Albeit I think that an anti-ageing cure would have serious consequences. We'd literally need to restructure whole countries. Plus, there are ethical and moral issues raised about allowing immortality.
I think the debate of "allowing" an anti-aging cure should be flipped into "forcing people to die of old age". Our society and economies will not suffer if people lead longer lives in good health, quite the opposite, actually.
The overpopulation is not really due to the death rate, more the birth rate. And the birth rate is already being handled at an individual level, once a country moves into the "developed" category. It's not the countries with a lowered death rates that are expanding the fastest!
The financial benefits of extending the 'healthy' years of life are immense. A quick like sample is that in the last 50 years, we've extended the 'healthy' portion of a person's middle age by a certain amount (~7 years, iirc). People used to waste away at younger ages, in their mid-50s, because of various factors. This healthy extension is credited with 40% of the economic growth we've experienced in those decades. 40%. In other words, if people had continued to die and waste away at the 'traditional' time, our economies would be much, much worse than they are now.
There is a concept called the "longevity dividend" in which 'end of life' costs are delayed (costs delayed translates into money earned, due to the compounding nature of investments) and a person's productivity is extended.
The journal specifically discussing the concept requires a subscription:
http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/
However, here is some commentary on the concept
http://www.grg.org/resources/TheScientist.htm
A cure for aging would benefit not only our individual selves, but our societies. In addition, there are many pro-active steps that private individuals can partake of, in order to speed the development of a cure.
The overpopulation is not really due to the death rate, more the birth rate. And the birth rate is already being handled at an individual level, once a country moves into the "developed" category. It's not the countries with a lowered death rates that are expanding the fastest!
The financial benefits of extending the 'healthy' years of life are immense. A quick like sample is that in the last 50 years, we've extended the 'healthy' portion of a person's middle age by a certain amount (~7 years, iirc). People used to waste away at younger ages, in their mid-50s, because of various factors. This healthy extension is credited with 40% of the economic growth we've experienced in those decades. 40%. In other words, if people had continued to die and waste away at the 'traditional' time, our economies would be much, much worse than they are now.
There is a concept called the "longevity dividend" in which 'end of life' costs are delayed (costs delayed translates into money earned, due to the compounding nature of investments) and a person's productivity is extended.
The journal specifically discussing the concept requires a subscription:
http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/
However, here is some commentary on the concept
http://www.grg.org/resources/TheScientist.htm
A cure for aging would benefit not only our individual selves, but our societies. In addition, there are many pro-active steps that private individuals can partake of, in order to speed the development of a cure.
Drug companies dont want to cure people. If they cured you, they'd be out of business.
QUOTE
Drug companies dont want to cure people. If they cured you, they'd be out of business.
True. *Treatments* are where the big profits are.
This is similar to my post in the medical section:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=ST&f=26&t=19172
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 18 2007, 08:17 PM)
Drug companies dont want to cure people. If they cured you, they'd be out of business.
And if they didn't, they'd be out of business.
Smallpox: In the 20th century alone, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths, more than double the number of people killed during the wars of that same period. As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 15 million people contracted the disease, and 2 million died that year. Smallpox has since been eradicated, through the effective use of vaccines.
http://www.path.org/files/VAC_vacc_history_fs.pdf
And if they didn't, they'd be out of business.
QUOTE
Smallpox: In the 20th century alone, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths, more than double the number of people killed during the wars of that same period. As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 15 million people contracted the disease, and 2 million died that year. Smallpox has since been eradicated, through the effective use of vaccines.
http://www.path.org/files/VAC_vacc_history_fs.pdf
I'm talking about *today's* economic environment.
It costs up to $800million dollars to jump through all the FDA's hoops to get a drug approved.
If you were the Director of R&D for a major pharmaceutical company, and you could *cure* AIDS with one shot of a drug that costs $1000, or *treat* AIDS for $1000/month (for the rest of the AIDS' victim's life) where would *you* put your R&D budget?
Smallpox was a long, long time ago, before it cost so much to get drugs approved.
It costs up to $800million dollars to jump through all the FDA's hoops to get a drug approved.
If you were the Director of R&D for a major pharmaceutical company, and you could *cure* AIDS with one shot of a drug that costs $1000, or *treat* AIDS for $1000/month (for the rest of the AIDS' victim's life) where would *you* put your R&D budget?
Smallpox was a long, long time ago, before it cost so much to get drugs approved.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 7 2008, 02:01 AM)
I'm talking about *today's* economic environment.
It costs up to $800million dollars to jump through all the FDA's hoops to get a drug approved.
It costs up to $800million dollars to jump through all the FDA's hoops to get a drug approved.
The $800 million is the full cost of development, testing involves maybe half that amount. Arguments can be made that current FDA standards are too stringent, but some level of efficacy and safety should be demonstrated, and that won't happen for free.
QUOTE
If you were the Director of R&D for a major pharmaceutical company, and you could *cure* AIDS with one shot of a drug that costs $1000, or *treat* AIDS for $1000/month (for the rest of the AIDS' victim's life) where would *you* put your R&D budget?
You honestly believe that there is conspiracy among pharmaceutical companies to stall a cure for AIDS and other diseases in favor of more lucrative stabilizing treatments? You don't think that an economic and moral incentive exists that would drive at least some to find a cure?
And wouldn't you be pretty dam*ed surprised to know that it already exists? My wife was diagnosed with stage 3a breast cancer. After choosing a mastectomy, she chose to avoid chemotherapy and radiation by changing her diet, and using several supplements to either fight cancer directly, or to create an environment that is lethal to cancer. 2 years and clear...
The only problem with this dietary regime is that it takes a lot of discipline, and if your digestive system is compromised, might make it even more difficult.
The true issue is that our oncologists and physicians have been taught that chemotherapy and radiation are the only way to "treat" cancer. A friend of mine put it succinctly... they are nothing more than delaying tactics.
To destroy your immune system and to pump your body full of toxins that are that bad is insanity. out of all the cancers only 2-4% even respond to these treatments, and often only for a short time. Some studies suggest that patients who choose not to treat it all live longer and healthier than those that choose the standard route.
There are many ways to treat, if not cure cancer, the catch is finding the one that works for you... Western medicine is spectacular in trauma medicine, wouldn't want to go anywhere else.
But for cancer, I wouldn't touch their treatments with a 10 foot pole, much less use it in my body.
MM
The only problem with this dietary regime is that it takes a lot of discipline, and if your digestive system is compromised, might make it even more difficult.
The true issue is that our oncologists and physicians have been taught that chemotherapy and radiation are the only way to "treat" cancer. A friend of mine put it succinctly... they are nothing more than delaying tactics.
To destroy your immune system and to pump your body full of toxins that are that bad is insanity. out of all the cancers only 2-4% even respond to these treatments, and often only for a short time. Some studies suggest that patients who choose not to treat it all live longer and healthier than those that choose the standard route.
There are many ways to treat, if not cure cancer, the catch is finding the one that works for you... Western medicine is spectacular in trauma medicine, wouldn't want to go anywhere else.
But for cancer, I wouldn't touch their treatments with a 10 foot pole, much less use it in my body.
MM
It isn't a conspiracy, it's a matter of corporations making decisions based on expected returns on investments. That's as universal as gravity, and incidentally, doing otherwise violates SEC regulations for how corporations are supposed to run their businesses. Decisions are made on behalf of their stockholders to maximize the return on *their* investments.
I doubt that doctors individually *know* a special cure for cancer that they're keeping up their sleeves, but cures take lots of money to research and lots of money to get FDA approval for, and Directors of R&D budgets are chosen to maximize their ROI, which is done with *treatments*, not *cures*.
You do the math.
I doubt that doctors individually *know* a special cure for cancer that they're keeping up their sleeves, but cures take lots of money to research and lots of money to get FDA approval for, and Directors of R&D budgets are chosen to maximize their ROI, which is done with *treatments*, not *cures*.
You do the math.
Cancer cures are merely word of mouth vs. treatments, given the information already discussed and agreed upon. Cures don't provide profits, they end them. 
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jul 7 2008, 01:43 PM)
And wouldn't you be pretty dam*ed surprised to know that it already exists? My wife was diagnosed with stage 3a breast cancer. After choosing a mastectomy, she chose to avoid chemotherapy and radiation by changing her diet, and using several supplements to either fight cancer directly, or to create an environment that is lethal to cancer. 2 years and clear...
I'm glad to hear a cancer success story story for a change. My friend's wife lost a two year battle with breast cancer after a stage IV diagnosis. My brother passed a year after his stage IV nasopharyngeal cancer discovery. A year after his diagnosis of stage IV pancreatic cancer, my cousin lost his life. The common thread to these examples is that unlike your wife, their cancers were not localized and effectively treatable by surgery, your wife was very fortunate to apparently had her tumor completely removed with her mastectomy.
Precisely my point. CEOs don't pay for expensive clinical trials for *cures* when they could be using the same money to pay for expensive clinical trials for *treatments* for the same disease.
If they're making $1000/month off each AIDS patient for *treatment*, and someone approaches them with promising research for a *cure* that could cost $1000 per patient, *once*, their request for clinical trials' budget gets swept aside and the *cure* never quite makes it to market.
It would seem that this potential cure is no closer to getting funding for clinical trials than nanosilver hydrosol.
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6
" In this work, we demonstrate that silver nanoparticles undergo a size-dependent interaction with HIV-1, with nanoparticles exclusively in the range of 1–10 nm attached to the virus. The regular spatial arrangement of the attached nanoparticles, the center-to-center distance between nanoparticles, and the fact that the exposed sulfur-bearing residues of the glycoprotein knobs would be attractive sites for nanoparticle interaction suggest that silver nanoparticles interact with the HIV-1 virus via preferential binding to the gp120 glycoprotein knobs. Due to this interaction, silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro."
QUOTE
The true issue is that our oncologists and physicians have been taught that chemotherapy and radiation are the only way to "treat" cancer. A friend of mine put it succinctly... they are nothing more than delaying tactics.
In the case of my brother and cousin, neither were expected to survive for an extended time, and their chemo and radiation were considered palliative, and for a couple of months their conditions did improve. When the treatment showed no improvement it was stopped and was no longer a factor in their well being. My friend's wife endured multiple rounds of chemo and radiation and at times did not tolerate the treatments well at all. My friend was jaded by the experience and says he would not opt for such treatment if he was struck by cancer.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The true issue is that our oncologists and physicians have been taught that chemotherapy and radiation are the only way to "treat" cancer. A friend of mine put it succinctly... they are nothing more than delaying tactics. |
In the case of my brother and cousin, neither were expected to survive for an extended time, and their chemo and radiation were considered palliative, and for a couple of months their conditions did improve. When the treatment showed no improvement it was stopped and was no longer a factor in their well being. My friend's wife endured multiple rounds of chemo and radiation and at times did not tolerate the treatments well at all. My friend was jaded by the experience and says he would not opt for such treatment if he was struck by cancer.
To destroy your immune system and to pump your body full of toxins that are that bad is insanity. out of all the cancers only 2-4% even respond to these treatments, and often only for a short time. Some studies suggest that patients who choose not to treat it all live longer and healthier than those that choose the standard route.
To destroy your immune system and to pump your body full of toxins that are that bad is insanity. out of all the cancers only 2-4% even respond to these treatments, and often only for a short time. Some studies suggest that patients who choose not to treat it all live longer and healthier than those that choose the standard route.
In most cases chemo and radiation are not intended to be a cure for cancer, only a complimentary treatment. Unfortunately, when chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatment options, those cases will have a high mortality rate regardless of the treatment.
QUOTE
There are many ways to treat, if not cure cancer, the catch is finding the one that works for you...
Any good oncologist would love to have a legitimate treatment option in their arsenal, the problem is that these alternatives you refer to have not been experimentally proven to their satisfaction.QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 7 2008, 02:46 PM)
It isn't a conspiracy, it's a matter of corporations making decisions based on expected returns on investments. That's as universal as gravity, and incidentally, doing otherwise violates SEC regulations for how corporations are supposed to run their businesses. Decisions are made on behalf of their stockholders to maximize the return on *their* investments.
I doubt that doctors individually *know* a special cure for cancer that they're keeping up their sleeves, but cures take lots of money to research and lots of money to get FDA approval for, and Directors of R&D budgets are chosen to maximize their ROI, which is done with *treatments*, not *cures*.
You do the math.
I doubt that doctors individually *know* a special cure for cancer that they're keeping up their sleeves, but cures take lots of money to research and lots of money to get FDA approval for, and Directors of R&D budgets are chosen to maximize their ROI, which is done with *treatments*, not *cures*.
You do the math.
Is the board of directors of my HMO in on this shakedown also? I always assumed they were after the most cost efficient care possible, wouldn't it be in their best economic interest to cure their cancer patients, or, replace standard treatment with these low cost alternatives? How do you explain their cooperation with the drug companies?
QUOTE (Capracus+Jul 8 2008, 11:28 AM)
I'm glad to hear a cancer success story story for a change. My friend's wife lost a two year battle with breast cancer after a stage IV diagnosis. My brother passed a year after his stage IV nasopharyngeal cancer discovery. A year after his diagnosis of stage IV pancreatic cancer, my cousin lost his life. The common thread to these examples is that unlike your wife, their cancers were not localized and effectively treatable by surgery, your wife was very fortunate to apparently had her tumor completely removed with her mastectomy.
In the case of my brother and cousin, neither were expected to survive for an extended time, and their chemo and radiation were considered palliative, and for a couple of months their conditions did improve. When the treatment showed no improvement it was stopped and was no longer a factor in their well being. My friend's wife endured multiple rounds of chemo and radiation and at times did not tolerate the treatments well at all. My friend was jaded by the experience and says he would not opt for such treatment if he was struck by cancer.
In most cases chemo and radiation are not intended to be a cure for cancer, only a complimentary treatment. Unfortunately, when chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatment options, those cases will have a high mortality rate regardless of the treatment.
Any good oncologist would love to have a legitimate treatment option in their arsenal, the problem is that these alternatives you refer to have not been experimentally proven to their satisfaction.
Part of the larger problem with trials for chemotherapy types, or radiation, or combination therein, is that the very companies that are designing them are the ones that pay for the trials. So any over the counter, or "alternative" therapies have no financial backing, therefore, are not trialed. Even when they are, the results are often skewed, keep in mind the large companies that are paying for the trials are investing billions.
Perfect example. Tamoxifen. The drug is horrendus in it's side effects, including uterine cancer, permanent nerve damage, heart damage, and the list goes on, including death from stroke. The effectiveness of Tamoxifen is about 75% in blocking estrogen positive cancer cells from attaching themselves to estrogen and metastisizing to another site in the body... here is the kicker. The oncologists say that it will buy you a 50% chance of blocking cancer which sounds great! What they don't say is that it is 50% of 1%. Between doing nothing, and taking Tamoxifen, there is 1/2 of 1% difference in your life expectancy.... 50% of 1% and for 6 years you are taking a drug that often causes cancer.... makes perfect sense to me.
There is an over the counter supplement, called I3C. It has a 90-95% effectiveness at blocking estrogen positive cancer cells. Has zero side effects as it is not much more than a supplement extracted from cauliflower and broccoli.... and costs about $19.00 for a months supply. My wife uses it, and her CEA is normal after 2 years...
and keep in mind, surgery only debulks the tumor, it does nothing for the root cause. her life changed dramatically. went from a meat and potatoes kind of gal to a vegan overnight. as well as sucking down a LOT of supplements to either fight cancer directly, or create an environment that is hostile to its growth. and that from a LOT of research, not just surfing the net.
Anyhow, enough of my soapbox. My mom lived for 3 years on chemo and radiation for advanced lung cancer. my first wife died 163 days from diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. chemo did absolutely nothing. and the list goes on pretty extensively. but for me, western medicine is not the answer. may be for others....
MM
In the case of my brother and cousin, neither were expected to survive for an extended time, and their chemo and radiation were considered palliative, and for a couple of months their conditions did improve. When the treatment showed no improvement it was stopped and was no longer a factor in their well being. My friend's wife endured multiple rounds of chemo and radiation and at times did not tolerate the treatments well at all. My friend was jaded by the experience and says he would not opt for such treatment if he was struck by cancer.
In most cases chemo and radiation are not intended to be a cure for cancer, only a complimentary treatment. Unfortunately, when chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatment options, those cases will have a high mortality rate regardless of the treatment.
Any good oncologist would love to have a legitimate treatment option in their arsenal, the problem is that these alternatives you refer to have not been experimentally proven to their satisfaction.
Part of the larger problem with trials for chemotherapy types, or radiation, or combination therein, is that the very companies that are designing them are the ones that pay for the trials. So any over the counter, or "alternative" therapies have no financial backing, therefore, are not trialed. Even when they are, the results are often skewed, keep in mind the large companies that are paying for the trials are investing billions.
Perfect example. Tamoxifen. The drug is horrendus in it's side effects, including uterine cancer, permanent nerve damage, heart damage, and the list goes on, including death from stroke. The effectiveness of Tamoxifen is about 75% in blocking estrogen positive cancer cells from attaching themselves to estrogen and metastisizing to another site in the body... here is the kicker. The oncologists say that it will buy you a 50% chance of blocking cancer which sounds great! What they don't say is that it is 50% of 1%. Between doing nothing, and taking Tamoxifen, there is 1/2 of 1% difference in your life expectancy.... 50% of 1% and for 6 years you are taking a drug that often causes cancer.... makes perfect sense to me.
There is an over the counter supplement, called I3C. It has a 90-95% effectiveness at blocking estrogen positive cancer cells. Has zero side effects as it is not much more than a supplement extracted from cauliflower and broccoli.... and costs about $19.00 for a months supply. My wife uses it, and her CEA is normal after 2 years...
and keep in mind, surgery only debulks the tumor, it does nothing for the root cause. her life changed dramatically. went from a meat and potatoes kind of gal to a vegan overnight. as well as sucking down a LOT of supplements to either fight cancer directly, or create an environment that is hostile to its growth. and that from a LOT of research, not just surfing the net.
Anyhow, enough of my soapbox. My mom lived for 3 years on chemo and radiation for advanced lung cancer. my first wife died 163 days from diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. chemo did absolutely nothing. and the list goes on pretty extensively. but for me, western medicine is not the answer. may be for others....
MM
POE
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 6 2008, 10:01 PM)
If you were the Director of R&D for a major pharmaceutical company, and you could *cure* AIDS with one shot of a drug that costs $1000, or *treat* AIDS for $1000/month (for the rest of the AIDS' victim's life) where would *you* put your R&D budget?
So much for those claiming that a cure for HIV and AIDS is not being researched and developed.
So much for the FDA/AMA conspiracy theories.
Link
Now, if it were only nanosilver based....
So much for those claiming that a cure for HIV and AIDS is not being researched and developed.
So much for the FDA/AMA conspiracy theories.
Link
QUOTE
Doctors may have found a way to destroy HIV
HOUSTON -- There is real hope that what’s happening in a Houston lab might lead to a cure for HIV.
“We have found an innovative way to kill the virus by finding this small region of HIV that is unchangeable,” Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston said.
Dr. Paul and Dr. Miguel Escobar aren’t talking about just suppressing HIV – they’re talking about destroying it permanently by arming the immune system with a new weapon lab tests have shown to be effective.
Ford Stuart has been HIV positive for 15 years. He’s on a powerful drug cocktail that keeps the disease in check.
“I’m on four different medications. Three of them are brand new, and it’s the first time that I’ve ever been non-detectible,” Stuart said. “I’m down to about – just for the HIV – about nine pills per day, five in the morning and four at night.”
But Stuart knows HIV mutates, and eventually it will learn how to outsmart his medications.
“The virus is truly complex and has many tricks up its sleeve,” Paul said.
But Dr. Paul thinks he’s cracked a code.
“We’ve discovered the weak spot of HIV,” he said.
Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV’s structure that does not mutate.
“The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel,” Paul said.
That Achilles heel is the doctors’ way in. They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme.
It’s naturally produced by people, like lupus patients. When they applied that abzyme to the HIV virus, it permanently disarmed it.
“What we already have in our hand are the abzymes that we could be infusing into the human subjects with HIV infection, essentially to move the virus,” Paul said.
Basically, their idea could be used to control the disease for people who already have it and prevent infection for those at risk.
The theory has held up in lab and animal testing. The next step is human trials.
Meanwhile, every day in Houston, three people are diagnosed with HIV.
The doctors still need funding to launch human trials. In the world of HIV research, that’s often where things fall apart.
“Clinical trials are very expensive,” Paul said.
“That is the worry of the researcher. This is what nightmares are made of – that after 30 years of work, you find it doesn’t work,” Paul said.
But so far, it is working.
“This is the holy grail of HIV research, to develop a preventative vaccine,” Paul said.
“If we can get the viral loads down to a manageable level, that will preclude the need for these conventional drugs,” Escobar said.
Still, even if everything goes well, it’s at least five years before the research could help people with HIV.
The doctors know people like Ford Stuart are waiting.
“There are so many people struggling with the disease because it affects not only your body, but also your psyche, how you perceive yourself,” he said.
If nothing else, the research is promising for the tens of millions waiting for a cure.
HOUSTON -- There is real hope that what’s happening in a Houston lab might lead to a cure for HIV.
“We have found an innovative way to kill the virus by finding this small region of HIV that is unchangeable,” Dr. Sudhir Paul of the University of Texas Medical School at Houston said.
Dr. Paul and Dr. Miguel Escobar aren’t talking about just suppressing HIV – they’re talking about destroying it permanently by arming the immune system with a new weapon lab tests have shown to be effective.
Ford Stuart has been HIV positive for 15 years. He’s on a powerful drug cocktail that keeps the disease in check.
“I’m on four different medications. Three of them are brand new, and it’s the first time that I’ve ever been non-detectible,” Stuart said. “I’m down to about – just for the HIV – about nine pills per day, five in the morning and four at night.”
But Stuart knows HIV mutates, and eventually it will learn how to outsmart his medications.
“The virus is truly complex and has many tricks up its sleeve,” Paul said.
But Dr. Paul thinks he’s cracked a code.
“We’ve discovered the weak spot of HIV,” he said.
Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV’s structure that does not mutate.
“The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel,” Paul said.
That Achilles heel is the doctors’ way in. They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme.
It’s naturally produced by people, like lupus patients. When they applied that abzyme to the HIV virus, it permanently disarmed it.
“What we already have in our hand are the abzymes that we could be infusing into the human subjects with HIV infection, essentially to move the virus,” Paul said.
Basically, their idea could be used to control the disease for people who already have it and prevent infection for those at risk.
The theory has held up in lab and animal testing. The next step is human trials.
Meanwhile, every day in Houston, three people are diagnosed with HIV.
The doctors still need funding to launch human trials. In the world of HIV research, that’s often where things fall apart.
“Clinical trials are very expensive,” Paul said.
“That is the worry of the researcher. This is what nightmares are made of – that after 30 years of work, you find it doesn’t work,” Paul said.
But so far, it is working.
“This is the holy grail of HIV research, to develop a preventative vaccine,” Paul said.
“If we can get the viral loads down to a manageable level, that will preclude the need for these conventional drugs,” Escobar said.
Still, even if everything goes well, it’s at least five years before the research could help people with HIV.
The doctors know people like Ford Stuart are waiting.
“There are so many people struggling with the disease because it affects not only your body, but also your psyche, how you perceive yourself,” he said.
If nothing else, the research is promising for the tens of millions waiting for a cure.
Now, if it were only nanosilver based....
The source article is a bit misleading. Saying that we should research of "a" cure for cancer is like saying we need to find "a" cure for the common cold.
The problem with the collective fight against cancer is that there is not one magic bullet or one way to treat or potentially cure all cancer(s) since all cases are unique to some degree.
Cancers themselves vary as does the reaction a person has to both the cancer and the related treatments.
The problem with the collective fight against cancer is that there is not one magic bullet or one way to treat or potentially cure all cancer(s) since all cases are unique to some degree.
Cancers themselves vary as does the reaction a person has to both the cancer and the related treatments.
QUOTE
The doctors still need funding to launch human trials. In the world of HIV research, that’s often where things fall apart.
“Clinical trials are very expensive,” Paul said.
“Clinical trials are very expensive,” Paul said.
Precisely my point. CEOs don't pay for expensive clinical trials for *cures* when they could be using the same money to pay for expensive clinical trials for *treatments* for the same disease.
If they're making $1000/month off each AIDS patient for *treatment*, and someone approaches them with promising research for a *cure* that could cost $1000 per patient, *once*, their request for clinical trials' budget gets swept aside and the *cure* never quite makes it to market.
It would seem that this potential cure is no closer to getting funding for clinical trials than nanosilver hydrosol.
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6
" In this work, we demonstrate that silver nanoparticles undergo a size-dependent interaction with HIV-1, with nanoparticles exclusively in the range of 1–10 nm attached to the virus. The regular spatial arrangement of the attached nanoparticles, the center-to-center distance between nanoparticles, and the fact that the exposed sulfur-bearing residues of the glycoprotein knobs would be attractive sites for nanoparticle interaction suggest that silver nanoparticles interact with the HIV-1 virus via preferential binding to the gp120 glycoprotein knobs. Due to this interaction, silver nanoparticles inhibit the virus from binding to host cells, as demonstrated in vitro."
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Precisely my point. CEOs don't pay for expensive clinical trials for *cures* when they could be using the same money to pay for expensive clinical trials for *treatments* for the same disease.
According to a person who buys into and support a FDA/AMA conspiracy and who claims that the FDA doesn't care about people.
Yes, as viewed by a conspiracy theorist. No real shock there.
Yes, as viewed by a conspiracy theorist. No real shock there.
It would seem that this potential cure is no closer to getting funding for clinical trials than nanosilver hydrosol.
According to whom? You?
And you again misrepresent what articles state or what their ramifications are.
The article you keep posting to over and over is from 2005. The research and related articel I linked to are current.
And the overall fact you keep avoiding is that any of your claims about CS have been proven to be either wrong or lack any legitimate research.
And then there is your constant spin of trying to link anything silver to CS.
I'd cite the FDA ban on CS, but I'm sure that is just part of the FDA/AMA conspiracy.
There is no FDA ban on CS.
Also, I've never said it was a conspiracy, but I've explained it over and over, and you still don't seem to get it. It's a matter of profits for the big pharmaceutical companies, what they invest in, treatments keep paying-off monthly, cures you only get to charge for once, and from the FDA's perspective, it's a nightmare because the FDA is a *REGULATORY* agency, not chartered to provide for peoples' health, just there to regulate drugs, and they can't regulate something anybody can make themselves.
That's just one sentence you've stated where there are *TWO* instances of misrepresentation, one of the FDA's position, the other of my position.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I've said because it's easier to argue against a strawman, or are you truly so stupid and naive that you can't tell the difference?
According to a person who buys into and support a FDA/AMA conspiracy and who claims that the FDA doesn't care about people.
QUOTE
If they're making $1000/month off each AIDS patient for *treatment*, and someone approaches them with promising research for a *cure* that could cost $1000 per patient, *once*, their request for clinical trials' budget gets swept aside and the *cure* never quite makes it to market.
Yes, as viewed by a conspiracy theorist. No real shock there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If they're making $1000/month off each AIDS patient for *treatment*, and someone approaches them with promising research for a *cure* that could cost $1000 per patient, *once*, their request for clinical trials' budget gets swept aside and the *cure* never quite makes it to market. |
Yes, as viewed by a conspiracy theorist. No real shock there.
It would seem that this potential cure is no closer to getting funding for clinical trials than nanosilver hydrosol.
According to whom? You?
And you again misrepresent what articles state or what their ramifications are.
The article you keep posting to over and over is from 2005. The research and related articel I linked to are current.
And the overall fact you keep avoiding is that any of your claims about CS have been proven to be either wrong or lack any legitimate research.
And then there is your constant spin of trying to link anything silver to CS.
I'd cite the FDA ban on CS, but I'm sure that is just part of the FDA/AMA conspiracy.
QUOTE
I'd cite the FDA ban on CS, but I'm sure that is just part of the FDA/AMA conspiracy.
There is no FDA ban on CS.
Also, I've never said it was a conspiracy, but I've explained it over and over, and you still don't seem to get it. It's a matter of profits for the big pharmaceutical companies, what they invest in, treatments keep paying-off monthly, cures you only get to charge for once, and from the FDA's perspective, it's a nightmare because the FDA is a *REGULATORY* agency, not chartered to provide for peoples' health, just there to regulate drugs, and they can't regulate something anybody can make themselves.
That's just one sentence you've stated where there are *TWO* instances of misrepresentation, one of the FDA's position, the other of my position.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I've said because it's easier to argue against a strawman, or are you truly so stupid and naive that you can't tell the difference?
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
There is no FDA ban on CS.
For claims of medical treatment, yes there is.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelate...s/silverad.html
In fact, just Google FDA ban on colloidal silver and check out what comes up.
Link
Granted, most of the sites that you first see will be your fellow conspiracy theory and colloidal silver supporters, but the information is still there.
In fact, just Google FDA ban on colloidal silver and check out what comes up.
Link
Granted, most of the sites that you first see will be your fellow conspiracy theory and colloidal silver supporters, but the information is still there.
Also, I've never said it was a conspiracy, but I've explained it over and over, and you still don't seem to get it.
Oh, I get it, but I reject your rather paranoid claims. And you can keep claiming not to support the FDA/AMA conspiracy, but if a person were to espouse over and over that 9/11 was an inside job or that mankind never went to the moon but tried to claim that they did not support the related conspiracy theories, such a claim would be in direct conflict with their statements.
And that is part of the CT rhetoric.
And that is part of the CT rhetoric.
and from the FDA's perspective, it's a nightmare because the FDA is a *REGULATORY* agency, not chartered to provide for peoples' health, just there to regulate drugs, and they can't regulate something anybody can make themselves.
Yes, we have been over this before, but you now seem to lack the spine to state what you did in the past about the FDA and how is doesn’t care about people.
And again, I can cite your own post where you stated that the FDA doesn’t care about people. Do I have to link to the post where you stated this again? Unless you are trying to claim now that you never stated such a thing, how did I misrepresent what you posted?
And as far as your support of the FDA/AMA CT, you use and parrot the same claims as those who support the CT. You may think you are not a member of the CT, but if you preach exactly the same claims and go so far as to claim that the FDA doesn’t care about people, then you are a part of the CT regardless of your protests.
And again, as I stated before, even if what you claim about the FDA/AMA were true, the FDA and AMA do not control the medical infrastructure of the world, so how is it that there is no research from any other country that supports your claims?
And again, I can cite your own post where you stated that the FDA doesn’t care about people. Do I have to link to the post where you stated this again? Unless you are trying to claim now that you never stated such a thing, how did I misrepresent what you posted?
And as far as your support of the FDA/AMA CT, you use and parrot the same claims as those who support the CT. You may think you are not a member of the CT, but if you preach exactly the same claims and go so far as to claim that the FDA doesn’t care about people, then you are a part of the CT regardless of your protests.
And again, as I stated before, even if what you claim about the FDA/AMA were true, the FDA and AMA do not control the medical infrastructure of the world, so how is it that there is no research from any other country that supports your claims?
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I've said because it's easier to argue against a strawman, or are you truly so stupid and naive that you can't tell the difference?
Argue against a strawman? Yes, but the strawman claims were yours, not mine.
And yet you have yet to cite exactly how I have misrepresented your claims. You just keep crying foul because the claims you have made do not stand up to scrutiny.
Why when I challenge your claims do you simply move onto another tangent or set of claims?
If you have the facts behind what you claim, then you would not need to back peddle in such a manner nor would you have to resort to juvenile name calling or name alterations.
And one odd behavior on your part would be your apparent conflict posting here. In one thread I recently started, you entered into the conversation of your own free will and then, when you were unable yet again to argue rationally or conduct yourself in a manner befitting a person with the claimed intellect you do, you cry foul and start to resort to name calling and personal insults.
Why do such a thing if you are convinced that debating me is pointless? Why not just not reply unless you are driven by ego to do so?
For such a person who claims to have such a high intellect (.01% of the population) you are unable to backup your claims or rational address the topics at hand.
Why is that?
For claims of medical treatment, yes there is.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelate...s/silverad.html
QUOTE
In October 1996, the FDA proposed to ban the use of colloidal silver or silver salts in over-the-counter products [11]. A Final Rule banning such use was issued on August 17, 1999 and became effective September 16th. The rule applies to any nonprescription colloidal silver or silver salt product claimed to be effective in preventing or treating any disease [12]. Silver products can still be sold as "dietary supplements" provided that no health claims are made for them. During 2000, the FDA issued warnings to more than 20 companies whose Web sites were making illegal therapeutic claims for colloidal silver products.
In fact, just Google FDA ban on colloidal silver and check out what comes up.
Link
Granted, most of the sites that you first see will be your fellow conspiracy theory and colloidal silver supporters, but the information is still there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In October 1996, the FDA proposed to ban the use of colloidal silver or silver salts in over-the-counter products [11]. A Final Rule banning such use was issued on August 17, 1999 and became effective September 16th. The rule applies to any nonprescription colloidal silver or silver salt product claimed to be effective in preventing or treating any disease [12]. Silver products can still be sold as "dietary supplements" provided that no health claims are made for them. During 2000, the FDA issued warnings to more than 20 companies whose Web sites were making illegal therapeutic claims for colloidal silver products. |
In fact, just Google FDA ban on colloidal silver and check out what comes up.
Link
Granted, most of the sites that you first see will be your fellow conspiracy theory and colloidal silver supporters, but the information is still there.
Also, I've never said it was a conspiracy, but I've explained it over and over, and you still don't seem to get it.
Oh, I get it, but I reject your rather paranoid claims. And you can keep claiming not to support the FDA/AMA conspiracy, but if a person were to espouse over and over that 9/11 was an inside job or that mankind never went to the moon but tried to claim that they did not support the related conspiracy theories, such a claim would be in direct conflict with their statements.
QUOTE
It's a matter of profits for the big pharmaceutical companies, what they invest in, treatments keep paying-off monthly, cures you only get to charge for once,
And that is part of the CT rhetoric.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's a matter of profits for the big pharmaceutical companies, what they invest in, treatments keep paying-off monthly, cures you only get to charge for once, |
And that is part of the CT rhetoric.
and from the FDA's perspective, it's a nightmare because the FDA is a *REGULATORY* agency, not chartered to provide for peoples' health, just there to regulate drugs, and they can't regulate something anybody can make themselves.
Yes, we have been over this before, but you now seem to lack the spine to state what you did in the past about the FDA and how is doesn’t care about people.
QUOTE
That's just one sentence you've stated where there are *TWO* instances of misrepresentation, one of the FDA's position, the other of my position.
And again, I can cite your own post where you stated that the FDA doesn’t care about people. Do I have to link to the post where you stated this again? Unless you are trying to claim now that you never stated such a thing, how did I misrepresent what you posted?
And as far as your support of the FDA/AMA CT, you use and parrot the same claims as those who support the CT. You may think you are not a member of the CT, but if you preach exactly the same claims and go so far as to claim that the FDA doesn’t care about people, then you are a part of the CT regardless of your protests.
And again, as I stated before, even if what you claim about the FDA/AMA were true, the FDA and AMA do not control the medical infrastructure of the world, so how is it that there is no research from any other country that supports your claims?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's just one sentence you've stated where there are *TWO* instances of misrepresentation, one of the FDA's position, the other of my position. |
And again, I can cite your own post where you stated that the FDA doesn’t care about people. Do I have to link to the post where you stated this again? Unless you are trying to claim now that you never stated such a thing, how did I misrepresent what you posted?
And as far as your support of the FDA/AMA CT, you use and parrot the same claims as those who support the CT. You may think you are not a member of the CT, but if you preach exactly the same claims and go so far as to claim that the FDA doesn’t care about people, then you are a part of the CT regardless of your protests.
And again, as I stated before, even if what you claim about the FDA/AMA were true, the FDA and AMA do not control the medical infrastructure of the world, so how is it that there is no research from any other country that supports your claims?
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I've said because it's easier to argue against a strawman, or are you truly so stupid and naive that you can't tell the difference?
Argue against a strawman? Yes, but the strawman claims were yours, not mine.
And yet you have yet to cite exactly how I have misrepresented your claims. You just keep crying foul because the claims you have made do not stand up to scrutiny.
Why when I challenge your claims do you simply move onto another tangent or set of claims?
If you have the facts behind what you claim, then you would not need to back peddle in such a manner nor would you have to resort to juvenile name calling or name alterations.
And one odd behavior on your part would be your apparent conflict posting here. In one thread I recently started, you entered into the conversation of your own free will and then, when you were unable yet again to argue rationally or conduct yourself in a manner befitting a person with the claimed intellect you do, you cry foul and start to resort to name calling and personal insults.
Why do such a thing if you are convinced that debating me is pointless? Why not just not reply unless you are driven by ego to do so?
For such a person who claims to have such a high intellect (.01% of the population) you are unable to backup your claims or rational address the topics at hand.
Why is that?
A cure for cancer is both priceless and worthless at the same time.
It is priceless because, unlike most of you people, I value human life as something more than a mere dollar value of their so-called "net worth".
It is worthless because if the drug companies or doctors actually cured cancer they'd be out of quite a lot of business.
It is priceless because, unlike most of you people, I value human life as something more than a mere dollar value of their so-called "net worth".
It is worthless because if the drug companies or doctors actually cured cancer they'd be out of quite a lot of business.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 4 2008, 03:33 PM)
A cure for cancer is both priceless and worthless at the same time.
It is priceless because, unlike most of you people, I value human life as something more than a mere dollar value of their so-called "net worth".
It is worthless because if the drug companies or doctors actually cured cancer they'd be out of quite a lot of business.
It is priceless because, unlike most of you people, I value human life as something more than a mere dollar value of their so-called "net worth".
It is worthless because if the drug companies or doctors actually cured cancer they'd be out of quite a lot of business.
When we are meant to cure cancer, a cure will present itself. Then again perhaps there is no real cure. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place for the cause of cancer.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 6 2008, 08:01 PM)
If you were the Director of R&D for a major pharmaceutical company, and you could *cure* AIDS with one shot of a drug that costs $1000, or *treat* AIDS for $1000/month (for the rest of the AIDS' victim's life) where would *you* put your R&D budget?
If I realized I had the potential to destroy the market for AIDS "treatments," thereby drying out my competitors' source of income, and replace that market with just my own proprietary cure for AIDS, definitely I'd research the cure.
If I realized I had the potential to destroy the market for AIDS "treatments," thereby drying out my competitors' source of income, and replace that market with just my own proprietary cure for AIDS, definitely I'd research the cure.
QUOTE (Krieger der Wahrheit+Aug 10 2008, 03:10 PM)
When we are meant to cure cancer, a cure will present itself. Then again perhaps there is no real cure. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place for the cause of cancer.
If we only pray hard enough, God will instruct the Cancer Industry to stop stalling and find a cure.
If we only pray hard enough, God will instruct the Cancer Industry to stop stalling and find a cure.
QUOTE (Krieger der Wahrheit+Aug 10 2008, 03:10 PM)
When we are meant to cure cancer, a cure will present itself. Then again perhaps there is no real cure. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place for the cause of cancer.
And maybe you are full of religious hocus pocus... Krieger der Wahrheit, I am not sure if you realize it or not, but some of your posts can certainly inspire a great deal of anger pointed directly at you and your "faith". You might want to consider your words a little more closely before you post...
MM
And maybe you are full of religious hocus pocus... Krieger der Wahrheit, I am not sure if you realize it or not, but some of your posts can certainly inspire a great deal of anger pointed directly at you and your "faith". You might want to consider your words a little more closely before you post...
MM
If doctors are concerned more about profit than health, then why do pediatricians advocate breast feeding over formula? Doctors could surely benefit financially from kickbacks by promoting baby formula, instead they advise mothers to use the free stuff from the tits.
Not that some medical practitioners are above engaging in deceit to make a buck.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_10121544
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_10121544
I never said that doctors don't care, I personally believe they're the greatest heroes of the world. They save peoples' lives every day, and not from being in the right place at the right time, but through years of arduous study.
And, for the last time, I'm not saying there's any sort of "conspiracy" suppressing cures for diseases. I'm saying that corporations are in the business of making money for their stockholders, and that the biggest Returns on Investments (ROIs) are for LIFE-LONG TREATMENTS, *NOT* ONE-SHOT CURES. They invest their corporate R&D funding accordingly. Corporations aren't charities.
The FDA is a REGULATORY agency, and as such, it cares more about drugs than it does people, and more about conserving their authority than it does about drugs. Individuals within the FDA no-doubt love their families and pets and are nice people, but the people aren't the agency. The FDA has a charter, and decisions are made on the basis of that charter. It's their charter to REGULATE drugs, and something that can be made by anybody with a 9V battery and a couple silver coins is NOT REGULATABLE. If it's *effective*, that just makes it MORE of a nightmare to the FDA, from a REGULATORY perspective.
If it merely cures colds, look at what that does to the corner drugstore. They devote entire aisles to cold *remedies*, most of which are FAR MORE TOXIC than CS. That Blue Idiot proved that when he overdosed by taking 1.8million doses of CS and surviving. You won't survive taking 20 Tylenols in one day, and every day for 10 months he took >6000x the recommended dose of CS.
So we have a system where corporations are investing their R&D capital into the drugs that they can patent and sell exclusively for 20 years under that patent, and they make those investments based on ROI. (If you think otherwise, you've had no experience with working for corporations.)
And we have a system where drugs are regulated by the FDA, which has a lot of power over corporations, but are ill-equipped to deal with Mom&Pop drug labs, so they make it impossible for anybody without almost a billion dollars to spend on jumping through their hoops to get a drug approved, which drives the Mom&Pop businesses out of the drug business. Mostly for the best, but sometimes not.
DCA was shown effective at treating cancer by turning-on the cancer cells' mitochondria, which is where apoptosis is initiated. So you treat cancer with a few injections, and the tumors die like normal cells do, all on their own. Who's proposing *that* as a drug to the FDA? Nobody. You can't get a patent on DCA, and you can't prevent people from making and selling it on their own, so where's the point in investing $800million in getting it approved as a cancer treatment?
Linus Pauling declared that large doses of Vitamin C should kill cancer cells, and he was recently proved right, again (Published right here on PhysOrg a couple weeks ago). But the FDA sponsored research that "proved" him wrong 30 years ago, and branded him a "quack". Their research was based on giving people doses of Vitamin C orally, and Pauling said at the time that the body can't uptake enough Vitamin C through the digestive tract, that it had to be infused into the bloodstream for it to work. They ignored that, and, no surprises, it didn't cure cancer when taken orally. Now, 30 years later, they try it *his* way on mice, and find that it works better and on a wider range of cancers than most commercial chemotherapeutic agents. Oops!
Think of how many people you knew who died of cancer in the past thirty years due to that one hatchet-job "scientific study".
When a group of people do the same thing, each because it's in their own vested interest to do so, that isn't a "conspiracy". If that's over your head, say so, and I'll explain it for you. Next time you go to a crowded restaurant, recognize that everyone there is there for the same reason without any sort of "conspiracy" required.
If you look, you'll see that my first 500 or so posts on this forum was arguing *against* the 9/11 "troothers", the only conspiracy involved was the one Osama bin Laden set up, and most of my "negative comments" are from troothers who got their feelings hurt from something I'd said.
So I object to your misrepresentation of my position, and yes, you're using dishonest tactics to support your naive position(s).
Cures are being researched at *Universities*, like the one you cited and the one I cited at: http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6 , also done at the University of Texas, Austin.
And there are silver-based *treatments* that *have* jumped through the FDA's hoops (after getting patents) that are in-use in burn centers:
http://www.silverlon.com/index.htm
from which it's stated:
"Unmatched in design and durability, Silverlon®’s comfortable, flexible fabric delivers more safe, pure ionic silver to the wound site longer than other silver-impregnated products on the market. Silver that is evenly distributed and continually active. Silverlon® Dressings have been shown to be an effective treatment against stubborn MRSA Infections. Silverlon® delivers a speedy and sustained kill against MRSA Bacteria.
Versatile Silverlon® Dressings help wounds heal up to 50% faster and Silverlon® dressings will not stain wounds."
Even though they're using a LOT more silver than I've ever recommended anyone take.
I haven't accused either the FDA or the pharmaceutical companies of being evil. I *have* accused the Insurance industry of being short-sighted, however, as they tend to get stuck with "treatment" bills that would be larger than *cure research* would cost them. If the insurance companies spent a tiny fraction of their profits on bringing cures to the market, they could save themselves a lot of money in the long run.
And, for the last time, I'm not saying there's any sort of "conspiracy" suppressing cures for diseases. I'm saying that corporations are in the business of making money for their stockholders, and that the biggest Returns on Investments (ROIs) are for LIFE-LONG TREATMENTS, *NOT* ONE-SHOT CURES. They invest their corporate R&D funding accordingly. Corporations aren't charities.
The FDA is a REGULATORY agency, and as such, it cares more about drugs than it does people, and more about conserving their authority than it does about drugs. Individuals within the FDA no-doubt love their families and pets and are nice people, but the people aren't the agency. The FDA has a charter, and decisions are made on the basis of that charter. It's their charter to REGULATE drugs, and something that can be made by anybody with a 9V battery and a couple silver coins is NOT REGULATABLE. If it's *effective*, that just makes it MORE of a nightmare to the FDA, from a REGULATORY perspective.
If it merely cures colds, look at what that does to the corner drugstore. They devote entire aisles to cold *remedies*, most of which are FAR MORE TOXIC than CS. That Blue Idiot proved that when he overdosed by taking 1.8million doses of CS and surviving. You won't survive taking 20 Tylenols in one day, and every day for 10 months he took >6000x the recommended dose of CS.
So we have a system where corporations are investing their R&D capital into the drugs that they can patent and sell exclusively for 20 years under that patent, and they make those investments based on ROI. (If you think otherwise, you've had no experience with working for corporations.)
And we have a system where drugs are regulated by the FDA, which has a lot of power over corporations, but are ill-equipped to deal with Mom&Pop drug labs, so they make it impossible for anybody without almost a billion dollars to spend on jumping through their hoops to get a drug approved, which drives the Mom&Pop businesses out of the drug business. Mostly for the best, but sometimes not.
DCA was shown effective at treating cancer by turning-on the cancer cells' mitochondria, which is where apoptosis is initiated. So you treat cancer with a few injections, and the tumors die like normal cells do, all on their own. Who's proposing *that* as a drug to the FDA? Nobody. You can't get a patent on DCA, and you can't prevent people from making and selling it on their own, so where's the point in investing $800million in getting it approved as a cancer treatment?
Linus Pauling declared that large doses of Vitamin C should kill cancer cells, and he was recently proved right, again (Published right here on PhysOrg a couple weeks ago). But the FDA sponsored research that "proved" him wrong 30 years ago, and branded him a "quack". Their research was based on giving people doses of Vitamin C orally, and Pauling said at the time that the body can't uptake enough Vitamin C through the digestive tract, that it had to be infused into the bloodstream for it to work. They ignored that, and, no surprises, it didn't cure cancer when taken orally. Now, 30 years later, they try it *his* way on mice, and find that it works better and on a wider range of cancers than most commercial chemotherapeutic agents. Oops!
Think of how many people you knew who died of cancer in the past thirty years due to that one hatchet-job "scientific study".
When a group of people do the same thing, each because it's in their own vested interest to do so, that isn't a "conspiracy". If that's over your head, say so, and I'll explain it for you. Next time you go to a crowded restaurant, recognize that everyone there is there for the same reason without any sort of "conspiracy" required.
If you look, you'll see that my first 500 or so posts on this forum was arguing *against* the 9/11 "troothers", the only conspiracy involved was the one Osama bin Laden set up, and most of my "negative comments" are from troothers who got their feelings hurt from something I'd said.
So I object to your misrepresentation of my position, and yes, you're using dishonest tactics to support your naive position(s).
Cures are being researched at *Universities*, like the one you cited and the one I cited at: http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6 , also done at the University of Texas, Austin.
And there are silver-based *treatments* that *have* jumped through the FDA's hoops (after getting patents) that are in-use in burn centers:
http://www.silverlon.com/index.htm
from which it's stated:
"Unmatched in design and durability, Silverlon®’s comfortable, flexible fabric delivers more safe, pure ionic silver to the wound site longer than other silver-impregnated products on the market. Silver that is evenly distributed and continually active. Silverlon® Dressings have been shown to be an effective treatment against stubborn MRSA Infections. Silverlon® delivers a speedy and sustained kill against MRSA Bacteria.
Versatile Silverlon® Dressings help wounds heal up to 50% faster and Silverlon® dressings will not stain wounds."
Even though they're using a LOT more silver than I've ever recommended anyone take.
I haven't accused either the FDA or the pharmaceutical companies of being evil. I *have* accused the Insurance industry of being short-sighted, however, as they tend to get stuck with "treatment" bills that would be larger than *cure research* would cost them. If the insurance companies spent a tiny fraction of their profits on bringing cures to the market, they could save themselves a lot of money in the long run.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
If it merely cures colds, look at what that does to the corner drugstore. They devote entire aisles to cold *remedies*, most of which are FAR MORE TOXIC than CS. That Blue Idiot proved that when he overdosed by taking 1.8million doses of CS and surviving. You won't survive taking 20 Tylenols in one day, and every day for 10 months he took >6000x the recommended dose of CS.
No matter how many time you make this claim, CS is not a drug and your continual fallacious comparison dose nothing but show how you have to resort to irrational claims, especially after this fallacious comparison has been pointed out over and over.
That has got to be one, if not the most, laughable claim you have made. "Mom and pop" drug labs?! Are those the ones we see on COPs all the time?
That has got to be one, if not the most, laughable claim you have made. "Mom and pop" drug labs?! Are those the ones we see on COPs all the time?
DCA was shown effective at treating cancer by turning-on the cancer cells' mitochondria, which is where apoptosis is initiated. So you treat cancer with a few injections, and the tumors die like normal cells do, all on their own. Who's proposing *that* as a drug to the FDA? Nobody. You can't get a patent on DCA, and you can't prevent people from making and selling it on their own, so where's the point in investing $800million in getting it approved as a cancer treatment?
I still find it odd and very telling just how you continualy misrepresent of not outright lie about medical resaerch, and from a person who claims to have been involved in the biomedical field no less.
DCA was shown to work in vitro, and in rats and is still undergoing testing leading up to human trial. And you also misrepresent the testing in rats. No injection were used. The rat were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971
I remember when this story broke and snake-oil salesmen and supporters like you came out of the wood work promising such a cure.
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
I remember when this story broke and snake-oil salesmen and supporters like you came out of the wood work promising such a cure.
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
Linus Pauling declared that large doses of Vitamin C should kill cancer cells, and he was recently proved right, again (Published right here on PhysOrg a couple weeks ago). But the FDA sponsored research that "proved" him wrong 30 years ago, and branded him a "quack". Their research was based on giving people doses of Vitamin C orally, and Pauling said at the time that the body can't uptake enough Vitamin C through the digestive tract, that it had to be infused into the bloodstream for it to work. They ignored that, and, no surprises, it didn't cure cancer when taken orally. Now, 30 years later, they try it *his* way on mice, and find that it works better and on a wider range of cancers than most commercial chemotherapeutic agents. Oops!
And yet another claim of a cure and yet another one of your misrepresentations or fabrications made from ignorance or malice.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1446...s4_head_dn14460
Cure? Not as such.
And, and important note:
Cure? Not as such.
And, and important note:
Although there is little evidence that it works in humans, Drisko's clinic also offers intravenous vitamin C to paying patients.
Paying patients? Oh the details.
And think of all their money ill spent in desperation due to those who support and sale snake oil and patent medicine.
And think of all their money ill spent in desperation due to those who support and sale snake oil and patent medicine.
When a group of people do the same thing, each because it's in their own vested interest to do so, that isn't a "conspiracy".
It is when the collaborate for a common, and most would say, nefarious goal if the claims of the conspiracy was true.
Yes, please explain how one can use all the rhetoric of the conspiracy theorists including the "cancer industry" claim and not be a supporter of the CT.
Yes, please explain how one can use all the rhetoric of the conspiracy theorists including the "cancer industry" claim and not be a supporter of the CT.
Next time you go to a crowded restaurant, recognize that everyone there is there for the same reason without any sort of "conspiracy" required.
Wow. Can you come up with a worse comparison than that? Everyone at the restaurant didn't collaborate prior to going there.
And that is relevant to this subject how? There are plenty of people who take a stand against one or two such conspiracies but fall hook line and sinker for one or more others.
And that is relevant to this subject how? There are plenty of people who take a stand against one or two such conspiracies but fall hook line and sinker for one or more others.
And there are silver-based *treatments* that *have* jumped through the FDA's hoops (after getting patents) that are in-use in burn centers:
Yes and as it was pointed out to you all the previous times you have posted this misrepresentation, legitimate research involving silver does not mean that research supports CS snake oil.
Right. Claiming that they “don’t give a damn about people” doesn’t make them evil at all. Such spin.
Right. Claiming that they “don’t give a damn about people” doesn’t make them evil at all. Such spin.
If the insurance companies spent a tiny fraction of their profits on bringing cures to the market, they could save themselves a lot of money in the long run.
But they have to answer to those evil shareholders just as with Big Pharma, don’t they? But I’m sure they are not evil either.
That has got to be one, if not the most, laughable claim you have made. "Mom and pop" drug labs?! Are those the ones we see on COPs all the time?
I still find it odd and very telling just how you continualy misrepresent of not outright lie about medical resaerch, and from a person who claims to have been involved in the biomedical field no less.
DCA was shown to work in vitro, and in rats and is still undergoing testing leading up to human trial. And you also misrepresent the testing in rats. No injection were used. The rat were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971
I remember when this story broke and snake-oil salesmen and supporters like you came out of the wood work promising such a cure.
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
From that site:
From that site:
Investing in Research
The DCA compound is not patented and not owned by any pharmaceutical company, and, therefore, would likely be an inexpensive drug to administer, says Michelakis, the Canada Research Chair in Pulmonary Hypertension and Director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program with Capital Health, one of Canada’s largest health authorities.
However, as DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials.
Note three things:
1) The research is being done by the University of Alberta (Canada), not in the USA.
2) Read the last line of that quote, and re-read my post start-to-finish, and you'll see that we're saying the same thing - Big pharmaceutical companies, whom you seem to think would be anxious to jump all over this cure for cancer, aren't paying for the research. It's cheap and effective, and nobody owns the patent, so no big pharmaceutical company is paying for the human trials.
3) That quote (above) is from 2007. They are still seeking "private investors" for the research they'd planned to have finished by the end of 2007.
Funny, I don't see you calling *them* CT-ers.
And for the record, I never used the term "cancer industry", you did. And then you accused me of using it, and then claimed it proved I was a Conspiracy Theorist. That's misrepresentation at a whole new level, far beyond "spin". I've consistently said I don't believe it to be a conspiracy, nor that corporations are evil, only that they aren't charities.
And the "Mom&Pop" drug companies I was referring to include the small company that used to sell DCA on the internet to patients with cancer who'd exhausted all other options and were willing to take the chance on DCA as a last resort. The FDA shut down his company and threatened prosecution. (I'm not up on the details, they may have actually filed criminal charges against him.)
The FDA is likewise shutting-down any sites that sell Colloidal Silver that claims it has any antimicrobial effect. They also fall into the "Mom&Pop" category. Re-read the Red parts of my prior post. Ionic silver has been proved effective against MRSA, which kills more people in the US than AIDS does, and the FDA allows *them* to say that in their website only because *they* have jumped through all the FDA's hoops. But quoting them is illegal, and may get you prosecuted if you're just selling the ionic silver without the plastic backing.
I'm sure you've convinced yourself that I'm a liar and an idiot and a Conspiracy Theorist, but I'm none of the above. I was Director of BioEngineering Research for one small corporation, and Director of R&D for another small corporation, knew both CEOs well, and understood well the factors that went into their decision-making process of what to invest their R&D budget on, and it was strictly based on ROI - Return on Investment. Neither CEO gave a damn about helping people, each only cared about increasing profits, and the R&D budget comes straight off the bottom line profits.
So send your private contributions to the Official DCA Site at the link you provided, because the big pharmaceutical companies aren't investing in something that *cures* cancer, and neither is the FDA.
No matter how many time you make this claim, CS is not a drug and your continual fallacious comparison dose nothing but show how you have to resort to irrational claims, especially after this fallacious comparison has been pointed out over and over.
QUOTE
And we have a system where drugs are regulated by the FDA, which has a lot of power over corporations, but are ill-equipped to deal with Mom&Pop drug labs, so they make it impossible for anybody without almost a billion dollars to spend on jumping through their hoops to get a drug approved, which drives the Mom&Pop businesses out of the drug business. Mostly for the best, but sometimes not.
That has got to be one, if not the most, laughable claim you have made. "Mom and pop" drug labs?! Are those the ones we see on COPs all the time?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And we have a system where drugs are regulated by the FDA, which has a lot of power over corporations, but are ill-equipped to deal with Mom&Pop drug labs, so they make it impossible for anybody without almost a billion dollars to spend on jumping through their hoops to get a drug approved, which drives the Mom&Pop businesses out of the drug business. Mostly for the best, but sometimes not. |
That has got to be one, if not the most, laughable claim you have made. "Mom and pop" drug labs?! Are those the ones we see on COPs all the time?
DCA was shown effective at treating cancer by turning-on the cancer cells' mitochondria, which is where apoptosis is initiated. So you treat cancer with a few injections, and the tumors die like normal cells do, all on their own. Who's proposing *that* as a drug to the FDA? Nobody. You can't get a patent on DCA, and you can't prevent people from making and selling it on their own, so where's the point in investing $800million in getting it approved as a cancer treatment?
I still find it odd and very telling just how you continualy misrepresent of not outright lie about medical resaerch, and from a person who claims to have been involved in the biomedical field no less.
DCA was shown to work in vitro, and in rats and is still undergoing testing leading up to human trial. And you also misrepresent the testing in rats. No injection were used. The rat were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971
QUOTE
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
I remember when this story broke and snake-oil salesmen and supporters like you came out of the wood work promising such a cure.
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks. |
I remember when this story broke and snake-oil salesmen and supporters like you came out of the wood work promising such a cure.
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
Linus Pauling declared that large doses of Vitamin C should kill cancer cells, and he was recently proved right, again (Published right here on PhysOrg a couple weeks ago). But the FDA sponsored research that "proved" him wrong 30 years ago, and branded him a "quack". Their research was based on giving people doses of Vitamin C orally, and Pauling said at the time that the body can't uptake enough Vitamin C through the digestive tract, that it had to be infused into the bloodstream for it to work. They ignored that, and, no surprises, it didn't cure cancer when taken orally. Now, 30 years later, they try it *his* way on mice, and find that it works better and on a wider range of cancers than most commercial chemotherapeutic agents. Oops!
And yet another claim of a cure and yet another one of your misrepresentations or fabrications made from ignorance or malice.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1446...s4_head_dn14460
QUOTE
The researchers injected immune-deficient mice with cells from three aggressive human cancers – ovarian and pancreatic tumours, plus a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma – and found that vitamin C injections slowed tumour growth by up to 53%.
Cure? Not as such.
And, and important note:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The researchers injected immune-deficient mice with cells from three aggressive human cancers – ovarian and pancreatic tumours, plus a form of brain cancer called glioblastoma – and found that vitamin C injections slowed tumour growth by up to 53%. |
Cure? Not as such.
And, and important note:
Although there is little evidence that it works in humans, Drisko's clinic also offers intravenous vitamin C to paying patients.
Paying patients? Oh the details.
QUOTE
Think of how many people you knew who died of cancer in the past thirty years due to that one hatchet-job "scientific study".
And think of all their money ill spent in desperation due to those who support and sale snake oil and patent medicine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Think of how many people you knew who died of cancer in the past thirty years due to that one hatchet-job "scientific study". |
And think of all their money ill spent in desperation due to those who support and sale snake oil and patent medicine.
When a group of people do the same thing, each because it's in their own vested interest to do so, that isn't a "conspiracy".
It is when the collaborate for a common, and most would say, nefarious goal if the claims of the conspiracy was true.
QUOTE
If that's over your head, say so, and I'll explain it for you.
Yes, please explain how one can use all the rhetoric of the conspiracy theorists including the "cancer industry" claim and not be a supporter of the CT.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If that's over your head, say so, and I'll explain it for you. |
Yes, please explain how one can use all the rhetoric of the conspiracy theorists including the "cancer industry" claim and not be a supporter of the CT.
Next time you go to a crowded restaurant, recognize that everyone there is there for the same reason without any sort of "conspiracy" required.
Wow. Can you come up with a worse comparison than that? Everyone at the restaurant didn't collaborate prior to going there.
QUOTE
If you look, you'll see that my first 500 or so posts on this forum was arguing *against* the 9/11 "troothers", the only conspiracy involved was the one Osama bin Laden set up, and most of my "negative comments" are from troothers who got their feelings hurt from something I'd said.
And that is relevant to this subject how? There are plenty of people who take a stand against one or two such conspiracies but fall hook line and sinker for one or more others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you look, you'll see that my first 500 or so posts on this forum was arguing *against* the 9/11 "troothers", the only conspiracy involved was the one Osama bin Laden set up, and most of my "negative comments" are from troothers who got their feelings hurt from something I'd said. |
And that is relevant to this subject how? There are plenty of people who take a stand against one or two such conspiracies but fall hook line and sinker for one or more others.
And there are silver-based *treatments* that *have* jumped through the FDA's hoops (after getting patents) that are in-use in burn centers:
Yes and as it was pointed out to you all the previous times you have posted this misrepresentation, legitimate research involving silver does not mean that research supports CS snake oil.
QUOTE
I haven't accused either the FDA or the pharmaceutical companies of being evil.
Right. Claiming that they “don’t give a damn about people” doesn’t make them evil at all. Such spin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I haven't accused either the FDA or the pharmaceutical companies of being evil. |
Right. Claiming that they “don’t give a damn about people” doesn’t make them evil at all. Such spin.
If the insurance companies spent a tiny fraction of their profits on bringing cures to the market, they could save themselves a lot of money in the long run.
But they have to answer to those evil shareholders just as with Big Pharma, don’t they? But I’m sure they are not evil either.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Aug 17 2008, 12:53 AM)
That has got to be one, if not the most, laughable claim you have made. "Mom and pop" drug labs?! Are those the ones we see on COPs all the time?
I still find it odd and very telling just how you continualy misrepresent of not outright lie about medical resaerch, and from a person who claims to have been involved in the biomedical field no less.
DCA was shown to work in vitro, and in rats and is still undergoing testing leading up to human trial. And you also misrepresent the testing in rats. No injection were used. The rat were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10971
I remember when this story broke and snake-oil salesmen and supporters like you came out of the wood work promising such a cure.
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
QUOTE
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site:
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
From that site:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site: http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/ |
From that site:
Investing in Research
The DCA compound is not patented and not owned by any pharmaceutical company, and, therefore, would likely be an inexpensive drug to administer, says Michelakis, the Canada Research Chair in Pulmonary Hypertension and Director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program with Capital Health, one of Canada’s largest health authorities.
However, as DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials.
Note three things:
1) The research is being done by the University of Alberta (Canada), not in the USA.
2) Read the last line of that quote, and re-read my post start-to-finish, and you'll see that we're saying the same thing - Big pharmaceutical companies, whom you seem to think would be anxious to jump all over this cure for cancer, aren't paying for the research. It's cheap and effective, and nobody owns the patent, so no big pharmaceutical company is paying for the human trials.
3) That quote (above) is from 2007. They are still seeking "private investors" for the research they'd planned to have finished by the end of 2007.
Funny, I don't see you calling *them* CT-ers.
And for the record, I never used the term "cancer industry", you did. And then you accused me of using it, and then claimed it proved I was a Conspiracy Theorist. That's misrepresentation at a whole new level, far beyond "spin". I've consistently said I don't believe it to be a conspiracy, nor that corporations are evil, only that they aren't charities.
And the "Mom&Pop" drug companies I was referring to include the small company that used to sell DCA on the internet to patients with cancer who'd exhausted all other options and were willing to take the chance on DCA as a last resort. The FDA shut down his company and threatened prosecution. (I'm not up on the details, they may have actually filed criminal charges against him.)
The FDA is likewise shutting-down any sites that sell Colloidal Silver that claims it has any antimicrobial effect. They also fall into the "Mom&Pop" category. Re-read the Red parts of my prior post. Ionic silver has been proved effective against MRSA, which kills more people in the US than AIDS does, and the FDA allows *them* to say that in their website only because *they* have jumped through all the FDA's hoops. But quoting them is illegal, and may get you prosecuted if you're just selling the ionic silver without the plastic backing.
I'm sure you've convinced yourself that I'm a liar and an idiot and a Conspiracy Theorist, but I'm none of the above. I was Director of BioEngineering Research for one small corporation, and Director of R&D for another small corporation, knew both CEOs well, and understood well the factors that went into their decision-making process of what to invest their R&D budget on, and it was strictly based on ROI - Return on Investment. Neither CEO gave a damn about helping people, each only cared about increasing profits, and the R&D budget comes straight off the bottom line profits.
So send your private contributions to the Official DCA Site at the link you provided, because the big pharmaceutical companies aren't investing in something that *cures* cancer, and neither is the FDA.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Note three things:
1) The research is being done by the University of Alberta (Canada), not in the USA.
Irrelevant since I never stated the research was being conducted in the U.S.
Again, stop putting words into my mouth. You cannot even honestly represent current research or past research without displaying your dislike of Big Pharma/AMA/FDA.
No company or organization is going to put at risk their research funds. Your simplistic condemnation overlooks the fact of how many time and how much money has already been invested in researching potential cures for cancer and the fact that many that showed such promise even in animal testing simply did not work in humans.
And aging, I point out your intellectually dishonest misrepresentation by calling DCA a cure for cancer.
Again, stop putting words into my mouth. You cannot even honestly represent current research or past research without displaying your dislike of Big Pharma/AMA/FDA.
No company or organization is going to put at risk their research funds. Your simplistic condemnation overlooks the fact of how many time and how much money has already been invested in researching potential cures for cancer and the fact that many that showed such promise even in animal testing simply did not work in humans.
And aging, I point out your intellectually dishonest misrepresentation by calling DCA a cure for cancer.
3) That quote (above) is from 2007. They are still seeking "private investors" for the research they'd planned to have finished by the end of 2007.
Yes, and odd how they would not have found such support. After all, the millions, if not billions, made by the alternative medicine crowd and snake oil salesmen should go for such a noble cause yes?
Why on Earth would such people and companies not give money to research a possible cure for cancer? It would be because they are greedy would it? Or would it be that they operate just like the companies you condemn?
Odd how you are unable to apply the same standards to everyone, just those companies you dislike or have a problem with.
That is due to the fact that they are not posting the distortions, spin and CT nonsense you are. In fact, they even make the following claim on their site:
That is due to the fact that they are not posting the distortions, spin and CT nonsense you are. In fact, they even make the following claim on their site:
At this point, the University of Alberta, the Alberta Cancer Board and Capital Health do not condone or advise the use of dichloroacetate (DCA) in human beings for the treatment of cancer since no human beings have gone through clinical trials using DCA to treat cancer.
This is contrary to all of the snake oil sites I have seen and claim about the use if DCA know from the alternative medicine crowd.
Actually, you are in error on both accounts. I was not the first to mention it. And again, as far as what you describe, it it the claim of a cancer industry as it was pointed out earlier. You may refrain from using the term cancer industry, but what you claim is exactly the same as those who freely use the term cancer industry.
Actually, you are in error on both accounts. I was not the first to mention it. And again, as far as what you describe, it it the claim of a cancer industry as it was pointed out earlier. You may refrain from using the term cancer industry, but what you claim is exactly the same as those who freely use the term cancer industry.
And then you accused me of using it, and then claimed it proved I was a Conspiracy Theorist.
Okay, please cite where I stated you used the term cancer industry. I stated that
you use the rhetoric. Still having a problem comprehending what I post?
And again, explain how you can use all the same rhetoric of the conspiracy theorists yet not be a supporter of the CT.
And again, not so when I can cite your own posts to back up my claims. You use the same rhetoric.
And again, not so when I can cite your own posts to back up my claims. You use the same rhetoric.
I've consistently said I don't believe it to be a conspiracy, nor that corporations are evil, only that they aren't charities.
And you can backpedal all you like, but your posts do not reflect what you now claim.
And I commented on those snake oil salesman as well. They are taking advantage of people who are desperate. You may not see a problem with such a predatory industry, but any rational person would.
And I’m sure that the people making DCA are not doing it to make money or charging people more than what it costs to make and ship the DCA.
Better yet, they are being humanitarian and giving it away, right? After all, we are talking about what you claim is a cure for cancer.
And I commented on those snake oil salesman as well. They are taking advantage of people who are desperate. You may not see a problem with such a predatory industry, but any rational person would.
And I’m sure that the people making DCA are not doing it to make money or charging people more than what it costs to make and ship the DCA.
Better yet, they are being humanitarian and giving it away, right? After all, we are talking about what you claim is a cure for cancer.
The FDA shut down his company and threatened prosecution. (I'm not up on the details, they may have actually filed criminal charges against him.)
Excellent then. Predatory hucksters like this should be shut down.
Well, that simply cannot be. After all, when I claimed that CS was banned by the FDA for medical use and claims, you thought that fact was false.
But if any person is foolish enough o make such medical claim s without the backing of facts, they deserve to be shut down.
Well, that simply cannot be. After all, when I claimed that CS was banned by the FDA for medical use and claims, you thought that fact was false.
But if any person is foolish enough o make such medical claim s without the backing of facts, they deserve to be shut down.
Re-read the Red parts of my prior post. Ionic silver has been proved effective against MRSA, which kills more people in the US than AIDS does, and the FDA allows *them* to say that in their website only because *they* have jumped through all the FDA's hoops.
You mean your misrepresentation of research to support y the snake oil of colloidal silver. Again, if CS were effective, then the FDA ban would be moot since the FDA does not control research across the entire world.
I note how you never address that one hole in your CT claim.
According to you and your baseless claims.
According to you and your baseless claims.
I'm sure you've convinced yourself that I'm a liar and an idiot and a Conspiracy Theorist, but I'm none of the above.
Your posts say otherwise.
Yes, and again, you can claim to be anything or anyone. But thank you for sharing your negativity and hatred of Big Pharma right after claiming you are not a CTer. And didn’t you claim you owned a biotech company at one time? Why did you forget to include that in your litany of qualifications?
Yes, and again, you can claim to be anything or anyone. But thank you for sharing your negativity and hatred of Big Pharma right after claiming you are not a CTer. And didn’t you claim you owned a biotech company at one time? Why did you forget to include that in your litany of qualifications?
So send your private contributions to the Official DCA Site at the link you provided, because the big pharmaceutical companies aren't investing in something that *cures* cancer, and neither is the FDA.
And thank you for more proof of your CT membership. Again, why don’t you approach all those alternative medicine companies and have then donate some of their billions to the noble cause?
After all, you being such an expert in the biomedical field, surely you must have a long list of contacts in the AM fields.
And again, you show your intellectual dishonesty. DCA has yet to be shown as a cure for cancer. Calling it such prior to it being tested properly is not the sign of a person vested in science as you claim you are.
It is also not the sign of a person familiar with how research is performed. But then again, you think that there is some worldwide conspiracy against colloidal silver. There would have to be for the FDA to keep it banned and seen as innaffecteive for the 500+ cures supporters claim.
But back to you not being a member of a conspiracy theory, did you not once ask if I was employed by Big Pharma or accuse me of the same?
When I debate 9/11 truthers, I get asked if I word for the government or accused of it. When I debate snake oil supporters , I get asked and accused of being employed by Big Pharma.
You are not the only such CT supporter to do so; you are just the latest CT supporter to do so.
But be sure to let us know all of the alternative medical corporation that you have talked into donating tot eh DCA research. I’m sure the Colloidal Silver companies will be the first to donate.
You continue to assert that I'm a member of a group that I've consistently explained that I'm not a member of, so you're the one putting words in *my* mouth. I've explained how the CTers could get the false impression of a conspiracy, when it isn't a matter of conspiracy at all, it's simply that two entities both dislike the same thing for different reasons. They have no need to conspire.
And if you'd bothered looking at my feedback, you'd see that most of the negatives I got are from the 9/11 troothers who've accused me of being a government shill.
You're simply wrong about the CT accusation. I keep explaining it, you keep twisting what I plainly say and ignore what I've consistently said. No conspiracy required. FDA is strictly a regulatory agency, and CS can't be regulated, so they don't like it. As you yourself pointed out, how are you going to regulate it if people can "make their own with socks" (embedded with silver filaments which suppress the growth of bacteria and athlete's foot)? FDA can't REGULATE it, so they try other means to suppress it, like promoting scare tactics and disinformation about it, and guys like you fall for the disinformation and spread it around.
I pointed out that it could be made more sensibly with Canadian coins and a 9V battery but I still don't recommend it.
Human trials are expensive, and the existing suite of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents are very profitable. Why would any pharmaceutical corporation want to invest the money to put themselves out of business?
No conspiracy needed. Both are acting in their own vested interest, not for the general benefit of mankind. Saying so is far from "hating" either of them. Expecting us to "love" them for charging what the market will bear while ignoring the most-promising potential cures for diseases like AIDS, malaria, and cancer, is just plain stupid.
And yes, for about five years, after being Director of BioEngineering Research for one company (run by a snake in the grass), I started my own BioEngineering Research & Development company, and I have plenty of bad experiences that I'd rather forget about in trying to do business in the BioTech field, not the least of which being seeing two of my inventions stolen by two different large BioTech companies that had plenty of money for lawyers when I was struggling to keep the rent paid. I also had a $700,000 Phase II NIH grant application reviewed by an NIH researcher who literally could not read or write English, and received the review summary a week after my response to his comments were due, and when I complained about it, was accused of "racism" by the Director of the NIH SBIR Grant Program. Then, a large BioTech company that I'd approached with my technology seeking a partnership deal, me developing the technology, them manufacturing it and sharing the profits with percentages to be negotiated, tried stealing the idea outright, the Director of R&D asking me things like where I buy my wire, at which point I told him to "go to h3!!" and hung up on him. A year later, I got approached by another start-up corporation claiming to have plenty of financial backing, something I didn't have and, short of accepting Mafia drug-laundering money, wasn't going to get, hired me as their Director of R&D and had me reapply for the Phase II funding under their company, which I did, and when I started working as their Director of R&D, I discovered that their promotional literature already featured my device, only they were calling it something else, and that they claimed it was a product of another company they had a joint venture with, the President of that company being the Director of R&D that I'd told to "go to h3!!". That's when I quit the BioEngineering/BioTech field and went back to aerospace engineering, where people can be trusted (mostly).
So, you see, my personal feelings about the BioTech industry as a whole are flavored with first-hand experiences that are 99% negative, but I didn't related them because it was a painful time of my life, getting screwed by almost everyone I did business with. I only met a couple of people in those five years who were actually in the business to help people, the rest were out to make money any way they could, including outright theft. (The first invention that got stolen was patented and licensed to a company about a mile from here for $4million dollars by a former college professor of mine who read a 25 page feasibility study I'd written as a grad student on the miniaturization of an implantable insulin-infusion pump. When I started my own company, I thought I'd patent some of the ideas in that paper and did a patent search. There was my idea, with my former professor's name on it, dated 1 month after I'd turned-in the paper.) Why didn't I sue? He already had $4million dollars in his pocket and could afford OJ's defense team, and I was borrowing money to pay the rent.
Maybe *you* love people like that, but I don't, and it sounds like I know them better than you do.
While Director of BioEngineering Research for the first company, I went to a NIH/NINDS symposium, and met a genius (I use the term only when it applies) there who had both a doctorate in Electrical Engineering and an MD, both from Stanford, and he'd done trials with rats where he'd perfected the means of interfacing integrated electronics with rat nerves, and had maintained both the health of the "tapped" nerve and the viability of the nerve signal sensor for over a year in his tests, him being able to both read nerve signals and generate them. He gave a presentation on his research, making the modest claim that if this were pursued and funded adequately, that it could viably be used to treat spinal paralysis in humans within ten years. The NIH/NINDS stomped on him with both feet, demanding that he publish a full retraction and denunciation of his presentation, under threat of him never receiving another dime of research funding in his career if he didn't. So, having said nothing wrong, he fabricated a rationale as to why his prior statements were false and issued a formal apology for having been so naive as to think that paralysis could be cured within ten years. And he halted all further research into curing paralysis. That was in '91.
Find anything heartwarming in that story? It's true. I'd like to think otherwise, but I knew the guy, and wanted to partner my research with his and co-develop it, but the experience broke his spirit and he wants nothing more to do with any of it.
It wasn't an example of any sort of "conspiracy" by the NIH with wheelchair manufacturers, it was simply that the upper echelon of NIH/NINDS has been studying paralysis for decades using the rat-brain-in-a-blender approach, and he was approaching the problem as an electrical engineer would, and they didn't like his presumption, his being in his early thirties, claiming he could cure what they'd been studying their entire career. (And planned to *continue* studying for the rest of their career.)
Sorry if my actual experiences in the field contradict the way you *think* things work, and it isn't a warm&fuzzy picture that lets you sleep soundly at night, but I went into the field hoping to help people, translating my defense technology background into advancing the bioengineering field (turning swords into plowshares) at the end of the Cold War, but found virtually the whole field rotten to the core.
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by selfishness and ignorance."
1) The research is being done by the University of Alberta (Canada), not in the USA.
Irrelevant since I never stated the research was being conducted in the U.S.
QUOTE
2) Read the last line of that quote, and re-read my post start-to-finish, and you'll see that we're saying the same thing
- Big pharmaceutical companies, whom you seem to think would be anxious to jump all over this cure for cancer, aren't paying for the research. It's cheap and effective, and nobody owns the patent, so no big pharmaceutical company is paying for the human trials.
- Big pharmaceutical companies, whom you seem to think would be anxious to jump all over this cure for cancer, aren't paying for the research. It's cheap and effective, and nobody owns the patent, so no big pharmaceutical company is paying for the human trials.
Again, stop putting words into my mouth. You cannot even honestly represent current research or past research without displaying your dislike of Big Pharma/AMA/FDA.
No company or organization is going to put at risk their research funds. Your simplistic condemnation overlooks the fact of how many time and how much money has already been invested in researching potential cures for cancer and the fact that many that showed such promise even in animal testing simply did not work in humans.
And aging, I point out your intellectually dishonest misrepresentation by calling DCA a cure for cancer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) Read the last line of that quote, and re-read my post start-to-finish, and you'll see that we're saying the same thing - Big pharmaceutical companies, whom you seem to think would be anxious to jump all over this cure for cancer, aren't paying for the research. It's cheap and effective, and nobody owns the patent, so no big pharmaceutical company is paying for the human trials. |
Again, stop putting words into my mouth. You cannot even honestly represent current research or past research without displaying your dislike of Big Pharma/AMA/FDA.
No company or organization is going to put at risk their research funds. Your simplistic condemnation overlooks the fact of how many time and how much money has already been invested in researching potential cures for cancer and the fact that many that showed such promise even in animal testing simply did not work in humans.
And aging, I point out your intellectually dishonest misrepresentation by calling DCA a cure for cancer.
3) That quote (above) is from 2007. They are still seeking "private investors" for the research they'd planned to have finished by the end of 2007.
Yes, and odd how they would not have found such support. After all, the millions, if not billions, made by the alternative medicine crowd and snake oil salesmen should go for such a noble cause yes?
Why on Earth would such people and companies not give money to research a possible cure for cancer? It would be because they are greedy would it? Or would it be that they operate just like the companies you condemn?
Odd how you are unable to apply the same standards to everyone, just those companies you dislike or have a problem with.
QUOTE
Funny, I don't see you calling *them* CT-ers.
That is due to the fact that they are not posting the distortions, spin and CT nonsense you are. In fact, they even make the following claim on their site:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Funny, I don't see you calling *them* CT-ers. |
That is due to the fact that they are not posting the distortions, spin and CT nonsense you are. In fact, they even make the following claim on their site:
At this point, the University of Alberta, the Alberta Cancer Board and Capital Health do not condone or advise the use of dichloroacetate (DCA) in human beings for the treatment of cancer since no human beings have gone through clinical trials using DCA to treat cancer.
This is contrary to all of the snake oil sites I have seen and claim about the use if DCA know from the alternative medicine crowd.
QUOTE
And for the record, I never used the term "cancer industry", you did.
Actually, you are in error on both accounts. I was not the first to mention it. And again, as far as what you describe, it it the claim of a cancer industry as it was pointed out earlier. You may refrain from using the term cancer industry, but what you claim is exactly the same as those who freely use the term cancer industry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And for the record, I never used the term "cancer industry", you did. |
Actually, you are in error on both accounts. I was not the first to mention it. And again, as far as what you describe, it it the claim of a cancer industry as it was pointed out earlier. You may refrain from using the term cancer industry, but what you claim is exactly the same as those who freely use the term cancer industry.
And then you accused me of using it, and then claimed it proved I was a Conspiracy Theorist.
Okay, please cite where I stated you used the term cancer industry. I stated that
you use the rhetoric. Still having a problem comprehending what I post?
And again, explain how you can use all the same rhetoric of the conspiracy theorists yet not be a supporter of the CT.
QUOTE
That's misrepresentation at a whole new level, far beyond "spin".
And again, not so when I can cite your own posts to back up my claims. You use the same rhetoric.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's misrepresentation at a whole new level, far beyond "spin". |
And again, not so when I can cite your own posts to back up my claims. You use the same rhetoric.
I've consistently said I don't believe it to be a conspiracy, nor that corporations are evil, only that they aren't charities.
And you can backpedal all you like, but your posts do not reflect what you now claim.
QUOTE
And the "Mom&Pop" drug companies I was referring to include the small company that used to sell DCA on the internet to patients with cancer who'd exhausted all other options and were willing to take the chance on DCA as a last resort.
And I commented on those snake oil salesman as well. They are taking advantage of people who are desperate. You may not see a problem with such a predatory industry, but any rational person would.
And I’m sure that the people making DCA are not doing it to make money or charging people more than what it costs to make and ship the DCA.
Better yet, they are being humanitarian and giving it away, right? After all, we are talking about what you claim is a cure for cancer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And the "Mom&Pop" drug companies I was referring to include the small company that used to sell DCA on the internet to patients with cancer who'd exhausted all other options and were willing to take the chance on DCA as a last resort. |
And I commented on those snake oil salesman as well. They are taking advantage of people who are desperate. You may not see a problem with such a predatory industry, but any rational person would.
And I’m sure that the people making DCA are not doing it to make money or charging people more than what it costs to make and ship the DCA.
Better yet, they are being humanitarian and giving it away, right? After all, we are talking about what you claim is a cure for cancer.
The FDA shut down his company and threatened prosecution. (I'm not up on the details, they may have actually filed criminal charges against him.)
Excellent then. Predatory hucksters like this should be shut down.
QUOTE
The FDA is likewise shutting-down any sites that sell Colloidal Silver that claims it has any antimicrobial effect. They also fall into the "Mom&Pop" category.
Well, that simply cannot be. After all, when I claimed that CS was banned by the FDA for medical use and claims, you thought that fact was false.
But if any person is foolish enough o make such medical claim s without the backing of facts, they deserve to be shut down.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The FDA is likewise shutting-down any sites that sell Colloidal Silver that claims it has any antimicrobial effect. They also fall into the "Mom&Pop" category. |
Well, that simply cannot be. After all, when I claimed that CS was banned by the FDA for medical use and claims, you thought that fact was false.
But if any person is foolish enough o make such medical claim s without the backing of facts, they deserve to be shut down.
Re-read the Red parts of my prior post. Ionic silver has been proved effective against MRSA, which kills more people in the US than AIDS does, and the FDA allows *them* to say that in their website only because *they* have jumped through all the FDA's hoops.
You mean your misrepresentation of research to support y the snake oil of colloidal silver. Again, if CS were effective, then the FDA ban would be moot since the FDA does not control research across the entire world.
I note how you never address that one hole in your CT claim.
QUOTE
But quoting them is illegal, and may get you prosecuted if you're just selling the ionic silver without the plastic backing.
According to you and your baseless claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But quoting them is illegal, and may get you prosecuted if you're just selling the ionic silver without the plastic backing. |
According to you and your baseless claims.
I'm sure you've convinced yourself that I'm a liar and an idiot and a Conspiracy Theorist, but I'm none of the above.
Your posts say otherwise.
QUOTE
I was Director of BioEngineering Research for one small corporation, and Director of R&D for another small corporation, knew both CEOs well, and understood well the factors that went into their decision-making process of what to invest their R&D budget on, and it was strictly based on ROI - Return on Investment. Neither CEO gave a damn about helping people, each only cared about increasing profits, and the R&D budget comes straight off the bottom line profits.
Yes, and again, you can claim to be anything or anyone. But thank you for sharing your negativity and hatred of Big Pharma right after claiming you are not a CTer. And didn’t you claim you owned a biotech company at one time? Why did you forget to include that in your litany of qualifications?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was Director of BioEngineering Research for one small corporation, and Director of R&D for another small corporation, knew both CEOs well, and understood well the factors that went into their decision-making process of what to invest their R&D budget on, and it was strictly based on ROI - Return on Investment. Neither CEO gave a damn about helping people, each only cared about increasing profits, and the R&D budget comes straight off the bottom line profits. |
Yes, and again, you can claim to be anything or anyone. But thank you for sharing your negativity and hatred of Big Pharma right after claiming you are not a CTer. And didn’t you claim you owned a biotech company at one time? Why did you forget to include that in your litany of qualifications?
So send your private contributions to the Official DCA Site at the link you provided, because the big pharmaceutical companies aren't investing in something that *cures* cancer, and neither is the FDA.
And thank you for more proof of your CT membership. Again, why don’t you approach all those alternative medicine companies and have then donate some of their billions to the noble cause?
After all, you being such an expert in the biomedical field, surely you must have a long list of contacts in the AM fields.
And again, you show your intellectual dishonesty. DCA has yet to be shown as a cure for cancer. Calling it such prior to it being tested properly is not the sign of a person vested in science as you claim you are.
It is also not the sign of a person familiar with how research is performed. But then again, you think that there is some worldwide conspiracy against colloidal silver. There would have to be for the FDA to keep it banned and seen as innaffecteive for the 500+ cures supporters claim.
But back to you not being a member of a conspiracy theory, did you not once ask if I was employed by Big Pharma or accuse me of the same?
When I debate 9/11 truthers, I get asked if I word for the government or accused of it. When I debate snake oil supporters , I get asked and accused of being employed by Big Pharma.
You are not the only such CT supporter to do so; you are just the latest CT supporter to do so.
But be sure to let us know all of the alternative medical corporation that you have talked into donating tot eh DCA research. I’m sure the Colloidal Silver companies will be the first to donate.
QUOTE
And thank you for more proof of your CT membership. Again, why don’t you approach all those alternative medicine companies and have then donate some of their billions to the noble cause?
You continue to assert that I'm a member of a group that I've consistently explained that I'm not a member of, so you're the one putting words in *my* mouth. I've explained how the CTers could get the false impression of a conspiracy, when it isn't a matter of conspiracy at all, it's simply that two entities both dislike the same thing for different reasons. They have no need to conspire.
And if you'd bothered looking at my feedback, you'd see that most of the negatives I got are from the 9/11 troothers who've accused me of being a government shill.
You're simply wrong about the CT accusation. I keep explaining it, you keep twisting what I plainly say and ignore what I've consistently said. No conspiracy required. FDA is strictly a regulatory agency, and CS can't be regulated, so they don't like it. As you yourself pointed out, how are you going to regulate it if people can "make their own with socks" (embedded with silver filaments which suppress the growth of bacteria and athlete's foot)? FDA can't REGULATE it, so they try other means to suppress it, like promoting scare tactics and disinformation about it, and guys like you fall for the disinformation and spread it around.
I pointed out that it could be made more sensibly with Canadian coins and a 9V battery but I still don't recommend it.
Human trials are expensive, and the existing suite of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents are very profitable. Why would any pharmaceutical corporation want to invest the money to put themselves out of business?
No conspiracy needed. Both are acting in their own vested interest, not for the general benefit of mankind. Saying so is far from "hating" either of them. Expecting us to "love" them for charging what the market will bear while ignoring the most-promising potential cures for diseases like AIDS, malaria, and cancer, is just plain stupid.
And yes, for about five years, after being Director of BioEngineering Research for one company (run by a snake in the grass), I started my own BioEngineering Research & Development company, and I have plenty of bad experiences that I'd rather forget about in trying to do business in the BioTech field, not the least of which being seeing two of my inventions stolen by two different large BioTech companies that had plenty of money for lawyers when I was struggling to keep the rent paid. I also had a $700,000 Phase II NIH grant application reviewed by an NIH researcher who literally could not read or write English, and received the review summary a week after my response to his comments were due, and when I complained about it, was accused of "racism" by the Director of the NIH SBIR Grant Program. Then, a large BioTech company that I'd approached with my technology seeking a partnership deal, me developing the technology, them manufacturing it and sharing the profits with percentages to be negotiated, tried stealing the idea outright, the Director of R&D asking me things like where I buy my wire, at which point I told him to "go to h3!!" and hung up on him. A year later, I got approached by another start-up corporation claiming to have plenty of financial backing, something I didn't have and, short of accepting Mafia drug-laundering money, wasn't going to get, hired me as their Director of R&D and had me reapply for the Phase II funding under their company, which I did, and when I started working as their Director of R&D, I discovered that their promotional literature already featured my device, only they were calling it something else, and that they claimed it was a product of another company they had a joint venture with, the President of that company being the Director of R&D that I'd told to "go to h3!!". That's when I quit the BioEngineering/BioTech field and went back to aerospace engineering, where people can be trusted (mostly).
So, you see, my personal feelings about the BioTech industry as a whole are flavored with first-hand experiences that are 99% negative, but I didn't related them because it was a painful time of my life, getting screwed by almost everyone I did business with. I only met a couple of people in those five years who were actually in the business to help people, the rest were out to make money any way they could, including outright theft. (The first invention that got stolen was patented and licensed to a company about a mile from here for $4million dollars by a former college professor of mine who read a 25 page feasibility study I'd written as a grad student on the miniaturization of an implantable insulin-infusion pump. When I started my own company, I thought I'd patent some of the ideas in that paper and did a patent search. There was my idea, with my former professor's name on it, dated 1 month after I'd turned-in the paper.) Why didn't I sue? He already had $4million dollars in his pocket and could afford OJ's defense team, and I was borrowing money to pay the rent.
Maybe *you* love people like that, but I don't, and it sounds like I know them better than you do.
While Director of BioEngineering Research for the first company, I went to a NIH/NINDS symposium, and met a genius (I use the term only when it applies) there who had both a doctorate in Electrical Engineering and an MD, both from Stanford, and he'd done trials with rats where he'd perfected the means of interfacing integrated electronics with rat nerves, and had maintained both the health of the "tapped" nerve and the viability of the nerve signal sensor for over a year in his tests, him being able to both read nerve signals and generate them. He gave a presentation on his research, making the modest claim that if this were pursued and funded adequately, that it could viably be used to treat spinal paralysis in humans within ten years. The NIH/NINDS stomped on him with both feet, demanding that he publish a full retraction and denunciation of his presentation, under threat of him never receiving another dime of research funding in his career if he didn't. So, having said nothing wrong, he fabricated a rationale as to why his prior statements were false and issued a formal apology for having been so naive as to think that paralysis could be cured within ten years. And he halted all further research into curing paralysis. That was in '91.
Find anything heartwarming in that story? It's true. I'd like to think otherwise, but I knew the guy, and wanted to partner my research with his and co-develop it, but the experience broke his spirit and he wants nothing more to do with any of it.
It wasn't an example of any sort of "conspiracy" by the NIH with wheelchair manufacturers, it was simply that the upper echelon of NIH/NINDS has been studying paralysis for decades using the rat-brain-in-a-blender approach, and he was approaching the problem as an electrical engineer would, and they didn't like his presumption, his being in his early thirties, claiming he could cure what they'd been studying their entire career. (And planned to *continue* studying for the rest of their career.)
Sorry if my actual experiences in the field contradict the way you *think* things work, and it isn't a warm&fuzzy picture that lets you sleep soundly at night, but I went into the field hoping to help people, translating my defense technology background into advancing the bioengineering field (turning swords into plowshares) at the end of the Cold War, but found virtually the whole field rotten to the core.
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by selfishness and ignorance."
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
You continue to assert that I'm a member of a group that I've consistently explained that I'm not a member of, so you're the one putting words in *my* mouth.
And again, you use the same accusations and condemnation. Odd how you cannot explain why, other than the painfully obvious outcome that despite your protest you are a supporter of the CT.
And again, that may wash if it were not for your condemnation of the FDA as not giving a damn about people and your other related bitter posts about Big Pharma, the FDA and the like.
And again, that may wash if it were not for your condemnation of the FDA as not giving a damn about people and your other related bitter posts about Big Pharma, the FDA and the like.
And if you'd bothered looking at my feedback, you'd see that most of the negatives I got are from the 9/11 troothers who've accused me of being a government shill.
Wow. You just keep repeating the same irrelevant or disproven claims over and over. Again, it is irrelevant that you do not buy into the 9/11 CT or that truthers gave you negatives. As I have pointed out before, people may not support one CT or may be very rational in one or more aspects of their life but still adhere or support a CT elsewhere in their life.
Then why do you use the same rhetoric and display the same bias, dislike if not outright hatred of the FDA and such? You keep trying to make excuses but have yet to post a rational explanation for claims such as your emotion laden “the FDA doesn’t give a damn about people”.
Then why do you use the same rhetoric and display the same bias, dislike if not outright hatred of the FDA and such? You keep trying to make excuses but have yet to post a rational explanation for claims such as your emotion laden “the FDA doesn’t give a damn about people”.
I keep explaining it, you keep twisting what I plainly say and ignore what I've consistently said.
No, I keep pointing out how what you claim is not reflected in what you have posted earlier.
And again, your emotional outburst about the FDA still stands unanswered. And again, the FDA has banned CS for the claims of cures and medical use due to the fact that research has not supported the claims made about CS.
And again, your emotional outburst about the FDA still stands unanswered. And again, the FDA has banned CS for the claims of cures and medical use due to the fact that research has not supported the claims made about CS.
As you yourself pointed out, how are you going to regulate it if people can "make their own with socks" (embedded with silver filaments which suppress the growth of bacteria and athlete's foot)? FDA can't REGULATE it, so they try other means to suppress it, like promoting scare tactics and disinformation about it, and guys like you fall for the disinformation and spread it around.
And here again, we see the rhetoric of the conspiracy mindset. Why would one use the terminology like “suppress”, “scare tactics” or “disinformation” unless you think the FDA is acting in a nefarious manner?
These claims also are based upon the fallacious idea that CS is proven an affective treatment for the 500+ maladies it is claimed it treats.
So tell me again how you do not support a CT.
Again, CT rhetoric. You have just dropped mentioning the FDA by name since I called you on the fact that the FDA does not control the world of research.
Are you trying to claim that there has never been any research into the use of CS?
And again, what about the billions made by the alternative medical companies? Surely they would be interested in funding the proper clinical trial to prove that CS works. Oh, but after they did, they wouldn’t be able to profit from it any more than any Big Pharma corp since anyone can make it, right?
Again, CT rhetoric. You have just dropped mentioning the FDA by name since I called you on the fact that the FDA does not control the world of research.
Are you trying to claim that there has never been any research into the use of CS?
And again, what about the billions made by the alternative medical companies? Surely they would be interested in funding the proper clinical trial to prove that CS works. Oh, but after they did, they wouldn’t be able to profit from it any more than any Big Pharma corp since anyone can make it, right?
No conspiracy needed.
Right, but odd how AM companies are not the subject of your standards here.
And again, your emotional comment about the FDA speaks otherwise.
And again, your emotional comment about the FDA speaks otherwise.
Expecting us to "love" them for charging what the market will bear while ignoring the most-promising potential cures for diseases like AIDS, malaria, and cancer, is just plain stupid.
Ah. I noticed you changed your terminology yet again. You stated before that these were cures for cancer. Now they are just potential. Very telling alteration.
Again, according to you who still claims that snake oil like colloidal silver is just the victim of and FDA conspiracy. Again, the use of terminology like “suppress”, “scare tactics” or “disinformation” are not used by a person trying to make a rational argument about research or a banned substance like CS.
And again, internet bragging and more complaining from you about having items “stolen” from you even though you were a contractor and have misrepresented what that means.
And again, internet bragging and more complaining from you about having items “stolen” from you even though you were a contractor and have misrepresented what that means.
Then, a large BioTech company that I'd approached with my technology seeking a partnership deal, me developing the technology, them manufacturing it and sharing the profits with percentages to be negotiated, tried stealing the idea outright, the Director of R&D asking me things like where I buy my wire, at which point I told him to "go to h3!!" and hung up on him.
And more claims of thievery back by nothing. Keep bragging though.
You mention wire here. That would happen to be silver wire used in the creation of colloidal silver now would it? That would make sense since you protest the facts about colloidal silver so much including your mention several time of not making a profit from the sale of CS when and where such a mention was totally irrelevant to the subject.
And again, yet more thievery. Boy, you just seem to be one very persecuted fellow in the biotech industry.
And again, yet more thievery. Boy, you just seem to be one very persecuted fellow in the biotech industry.
So, you see, my personal feelings about the BioTech industry as a whole are flavored with first-hand experiences that are 99% negative, but I didn't related them because it was a painful time of my life, getting screwed by almost everyone I did business with.
Riiight. No bitter comment coming from you about Big Pharma, the FDA and the like.
And yet more thievery. You would think that a person of such a high IQ, top .01% I am told, would know better or would know how not to get screwed and stolen from.
And yet more thievery. You would think that a person of such a high IQ, top .01% I am told, would know better or would know how not to get screwed and stolen from.
When I started my own company, I thought I'd patent some of the ideas in that paper and did a patent search. There was my idea, with my former professor's name on it, dated 1 month after I'd turned-in the paper.) Why didn't I sue? He already had $4million dollars in his pocket and could afford OJ's defense team, and I was borrowing money to pay the rent.
And of course there are no lawyers would take the case based upon outcome of the trial if you had such a rock-solid case.
And how odd that your old professor had a patent in only one month after you turned in your paper. That must have been some sort of record. Considering he or she managed to pull that miracle off, he or she could make even more millions by teaching others how to get a patent in one month.
No, it sounds like you are making up claims that are not supported by reality. So now we find out that you, a person who brags about being a member of the upper .01% of the population, has been stolen from on several occasions and on one occasion by a gifted professor who managed to get a patent in record-breaking time.
No, it sounds like you are making up claims that are not supported by reality. So now we find out that you, a person who brags about being a member of the upper .01% of the population, has been stolen from on several occasions and on one occasion by a gifted professor who managed to get a patent in record-breaking time.
While Director of BioEngineering Research for the first company, I went to a NIH/NINDS symposium, and met a genius (I use the term only when it applies) there who had both a doctorate in Electrical Engineering and an MD, both from Stanford, and he'd done trials with rats where he'd perfected the means of interfacing integrated electronics with rat nerves, and had maintained both the health of the "tapped" nerve and the viability of the nerve signal sensor for over a year in his tests, him being able to both read nerve signals and generate them. He gave a presentation on his research, making the modest claim that if this were pursued and funded adequately, that it could viably be used to treat spinal paralysis in humans within ten years. The NIH/NINDS stomped on him with both feet, demanding that he publish a full retraction and denunciation of his presentation, under threat of him never receiving another dime of research funding in his career if he didn't. So, having said nothing wrong, he fabricated a rationale as to why his prior statements were false and issued a formal apology for having been so naive as to think that paralysis could be cured within ten years. And he halted all further research into curing paralysis. That was in '91.
This is just too funny. More claims with nothing to back them up but your hollow word. Any proof to back up this claims would be found where?
And again, the persecutor in this is yet another government organization.
Since you have a habit of making claim and not being able to back them up with any legitimate source, and rather than tell me to just go look it up again, how about you just give me the gentleman’s name who was “stomped” by the NIH/NINDS.
No, but it is amusing to hear your tall tales.
No, but it is amusing to hear your tall tales.
It's true.
Sure it is.
LOL. Right. Again, his name?
LOL. Right. Again, his name?
It wasn't an example of any sort of "conspiracy" by the NIH with wheelchair manufacturers, it was simply that the upper echelon of NIH/NINDS has been studying paralysis for decades using the rat-brain-in-a-blender approach, and he was approaching the problem as an electrical engineer would, and they didn't like his presumption, his being in his early thirties, claiming he could cure what they'd been studying their entire career. (And planned to *continue* studying for the rest of their career.)
LOL. Right. We all need to believe that the NIH/NINDS would prefer to “stomp” out research due to their collective ego.
Your experience, such as it is, it nothing more than a collection of tall tales from a person who has nothing to back up their claims other than an apparent hatred of the FDA, Big Pharam and the like.
You claimed you had your ideas stolen from you before while you were under a contract and either not comprehending or misrepresenting the fact that in such a contract, whatever you create under that contract is not owned by you.
And your person comments about and condemnations of me are moot to the subject of how what you claim is not supported by any facts or how you make unsupported claims about colloidal silver snake oil.
Your experience, such as it is, it nothing more than a collection of tall tales from a person who has nothing to back up their claims other than an apparent hatred of the FDA, Big Pharam and the like.
You claimed you had your ideas stolen from you before while you were under a contract and either not comprehending or misrepresenting the fact that in such a contract, whatever you create under that contract is not owned by you.
And your person comments about and condemnations of me are moot to the subject of how what you claim is not supported by any facts or how you make unsupported claims about colloidal silver snake oil.
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by selfishness and ignorance."
Then tell me, why did you accuse me of being employed by Big Pharam when I challenged your unsupported claims about CS with the facts?
Why do you continue to use the same rhetoric regarding the cancer industry?
Why do you continue to post ever-more elaborate tall tales about corruption and thievery with nothing to support it?
And can you explain just how your old professor was able to get a patent supposedly on one of your ideas in only one month?
Care to cite what that patent was?
Who the professor was?
All of your tall tales may be seen as worthy on the snake oil sites and I’m sure they believe them without question, but for them to be seen as something other than just a collection of tall tales, you would have to provide something of substance here.
I’m sure you have some excuse for not being able to.
The FDA is a REGULATORY AGENCY, and it DOESN'T give a damn about people. That doesn't mean they enter into conspiracies with wheelchair makers when someone approaches them with a potential cure for paralysis. That leap is yours and yours alone. Asserting that my "rhetoric" is similar to that of a CTer is no proof whatsoever that I'm a CTer, especially given the fact that I've explained it dozens of times that two entities can both dislike the same thing for different reasons without there being ANY conspiracy involved.
Are you really too thick to grasp that concept?
My opinions of the NIH are based on my own experiences with them, and I have mixed feelings about them because I've had mixed experiences with them. They granted me two research grants, and that was nice of them, and then denied a grant application by submitting it for review to someone who couldn't read or write English. It cost me my company. I have a right to despise them for doing that, it was despicable. They also forced a genius (an MD and a PhD in EE) to publicly humiliate himself under threat of "never seeing another dime of research funding" for developing a potential cure for paralysis. That, also, was despicable. Am I *compelled* to like people who do such things just because they work for the US government?
I can tell from your naivety that you have no such personal experience in dealing with the government, nor with corporations, which you seem to feel are run like charities, putting the Public Good over their own Bottom Line. They don't. If they do in your world, pray tell, what's the color of the sky where you live?
And again, you use the same accusations and condemnation. Odd how you cannot explain why, other than the painfully obvious outcome that despite your protest you are a supporter of the CT.
QUOTE
I've explained how the CTers could get the false impression of a conspiracy, when it isn't a matter of conspiracy at all, it's simply that two entities both dislike the same thing for different reasons. They have no need to conspire.
And again, that may wash if it were not for your condemnation of the FDA as not giving a damn about people and your other related bitter posts about Big Pharma, the FDA and the like.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've explained how the CTers could get the false impression of a conspiracy, when it isn't a matter of conspiracy at all, it's simply that two entities both dislike the same thing for different reasons. They have no need to conspire. |
And again, that may wash if it were not for your condemnation of the FDA as not giving a damn about people and your other related bitter posts about Big Pharma, the FDA and the like.
And if you'd bothered looking at my feedback, you'd see that most of the negatives I got are from the 9/11 troothers who've accused me of being a government shill.
Wow. You just keep repeating the same irrelevant or disproven claims over and over. Again, it is irrelevant that you do not buy into the 9/11 CT or that truthers gave you negatives. As I have pointed out before, people may not support one CT or may be very rational in one or more aspects of their life but still adhere or support a CT elsewhere in their life.
QUOTE
You're simply wrong about the CT accusation.
Then why do you use the same rhetoric and display the same bias, dislike if not outright hatred of the FDA and such? You keep trying to make excuses but have yet to post a rational explanation for claims such as your emotion laden “the FDA doesn’t give a damn about people”.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're simply wrong about the CT accusation. |
Then why do you use the same rhetoric and display the same bias, dislike if not outright hatred of the FDA and such? You keep trying to make excuses but have yet to post a rational explanation for claims such as your emotion laden “the FDA doesn’t give a damn about people”.
I keep explaining it, you keep twisting what I plainly say and ignore what I've consistently said.
No, I keep pointing out how what you claim is not reflected in what you have posted earlier.
QUOTE
No conspiracy required. FDA is strictly a regulatory agency, and CS can't be regulated, so they don't like it.
And again, your emotional outburst about the FDA still stands unanswered. And again, the FDA has banned CS for the claims of cures and medical use due to the fact that research has not supported the claims made about CS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No conspiracy required. FDA is strictly a regulatory agency, and CS can't be regulated, so they don't like it. |
And again, your emotional outburst about the FDA still stands unanswered. And again, the FDA has banned CS for the claims of cures and medical use due to the fact that research has not supported the claims made about CS.
As you yourself pointed out, how are you going to regulate it if people can "make their own with socks" (embedded with silver filaments which suppress the growth of bacteria and athlete's foot)? FDA can't REGULATE it, so they try other means to suppress it, like promoting scare tactics and disinformation about it, and guys like you fall for the disinformation and spread it around.
And here again, we see the rhetoric of the conspiracy mindset. Why would one use the terminology like “suppress”, “scare tactics” or “disinformation” unless you think the FDA is acting in a nefarious manner?
These claims also are based upon the fallacious idea that CS is proven an affective treatment for the 500+ maladies it is claimed it treats.
So tell me again how you do not support a CT.
QUOTE
Human trials are expensive, and the existing suite of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents are very profitable. Why would any pharmaceutical corporation want to invest the money to put themselves out of business?
Again, CT rhetoric. You have just dropped mentioning the FDA by name since I called you on the fact that the FDA does not control the world of research.
Are you trying to claim that there has never been any research into the use of CS?
And again, what about the billions made by the alternative medical companies? Surely they would be interested in funding the proper clinical trial to prove that CS works. Oh, but after they did, they wouldn’t be able to profit from it any more than any Big Pharma corp since anyone can make it, right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Human trials are expensive, and the existing suite of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents are very profitable. Why would any pharmaceutical corporation want to invest the money to put themselves out of business? |
Again, CT rhetoric. You have just dropped mentioning the FDA by name since I called you on the fact that the FDA does not control the world of research.
Are you trying to claim that there has never been any research into the use of CS?
And again, what about the billions made by the alternative medical companies? Surely they would be interested in funding the proper clinical trial to prove that CS works. Oh, but after they did, they wouldn’t be able to profit from it any more than any Big Pharma corp since anyone can make it, right?
No conspiracy needed.
Right, but odd how AM companies are not the subject of your standards here.
QUOTE
Both are acting in their own vested interest, not for the general benefit of mankind. Saying so is far from "hating" either of them.
And again, your emotional comment about the FDA speaks otherwise.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Both are acting in their own vested interest, not for the general benefit of mankind. Saying so is far from "hating" either of them. |
And again, your emotional comment about the FDA speaks otherwise.
Expecting us to "love" them for charging what the market will bear while ignoring the most-promising potential cures for diseases like AIDS, malaria, and cancer, is just plain stupid.
Ah. I noticed you changed your terminology yet again. You stated before that these were cures for cancer. Now they are just potential. Very telling alteration.
Again, according to you who still claims that snake oil like colloidal silver is just the victim of and FDA conspiracy. Again, the use of terminology like “suppress”, “scare tactics” or “disinformation” are not used by a person trying to make a rational argument about research or a banned substance like CS.
QUOTE
And yes, for about five years, after being Director of BioEngineering Research for one company (run by a snake in the grass), I started my own BioEngineering Research & Development company, and I have plenty of bad experiences that I'd rather forget about in trying to do business in the BioTech field, not the least of which being seeing two of my inventions stolen by two different large BioTech companies that had plenty of money for lawyers when I was struggling to keep the rent paid. I also had a $700,000 Phase II NIH grant application reviewed by an NIH researcher who literally could not read or write English, and received the review summary a week after my response to his comments were due, and when I complained about it, was accused of "racism" by the Director of the NIH SBIR Grant Program.
And again, internet bragging and more complaining from you about having items “stolen” from you even though you were a contractor and have misrepresented what that means.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yes, for about five years, after being Director of BioEngineering Research for one company (run by a snake in the grass), I started my own BioEngineering Research & Development company, and I have plenty of bad experiences that I'd rather forget about in trying to do business in the BioTech field, not the least of which being seeing two of my inventions stolen by two different large BioTech companies that had plenty of money for lawyers when I was struggling to keep the rent paid. I also had a $700,000 Phase II NIH grant application reviewed by an NIH researcher who literally could not read or write English, and received the review summary a week after my response to his comments were due, and when I complained about it, was accused of "racism" by the Director of the NIH SBIR Grant Program. |
And again, internet bragging and more complaining from you about having items “stolen” from you even though you were a contractor and have misrepresented what that means.
Then, a large BioTech company that I'd approached with my technology seeking a partnership deal, me developing the technology, them manufacturing it and sharing the profits with percentages to be negotiated, tried stealing the idea outright, the Director of R&D asking me things like where I buy my wire, at which point I told him to "go to h3!!" and hung up on him.
And more claims of thievery back by nothing. Keep bragging though.
You mention wire here. That would happen to be silver wire used in the creation of colloidal silver now would it? That would make sense since you protest the facts about colloidal silver so much including your mention several time of not making a profit from the sale of CS when and where such a mention was totally irrelevant to the subject.
QUOTE
A year later, I got approached by another start-up corporation claiming to have plenty of financial backing, something I didn't have and, short of accepting Mafia drug-laundering money, wasn't going to get, hired me as their Director of R&D and had me reapply for the Phase II funding under their company, which I did, and when I started working as their Director of R&D, I discovered that their promotional literature already featured my device, only they were calling it something else, and that they claimed it was a product of another company they had a joint venture with, the President of that company being the Director of R&D that I'd told to "go to h3!!". That's when I quit the BioEngineering/BioTech field and went back to aerospace engineering, where people can be trusted (mostly).
And again, yet more thievery. Boy, you just seem to be one very persecuted fellow in the biotech industry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A year later, I got approached by another start-up corporation claiming to have plenty of financial backing, something I didn't have and, short of accepting Mafia drug-laundering money, wasn't going to get, hired me as their Director of R&D and had me reapply for the Phase II funding under their company, which I did, and when I started working as their Director of R&D, I discovered that their promotional literature already featured my device, only they were calling it something else, and that they claimed it was a product of another company they had a joint venture with, the President of that company being the Director of R&D that I'd told to "go to h3!!". That's when I quit the BioEngineering/BioTech field and went back to aerospace engineering, where people can be trusted (mostly). |
And again, yet more thievery. Boy, you just seem to be one very persecuted fellow in the biotech industry.
So, you see, my personal feelings about the BioTech industry as a whole are flavored with first-hand experiences that are 99% negative, but I didn't related them because it was a painful time of my life, getting screwed by almost everyone I did business with.
Riiight. No bitter comment coming from you about Big Pharma, the FDA and the like.
QUOTE
I only met a couple of people in those five years who were actually in the business to help people, the rest were out to make money any way they could, including outright theft. (The first invention that got stolen was patented and licensed to a company about a mile from here for $4million dollars by a former college professor of mine who read a 25 page feasibility study I'd written as a grad student on the miniaturization of an implantable insulin-infusion pump.
And yet more thievery. You would think that a person of such a high IQ, top .01% I am told, would know better or would know how not to get screwed and stolen from.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I only met a couple of people in those five years who were actually in the business to help people, the rest were out to make money any way they could, including outright theft. (The first invention that got stolen was patented and licensed to a company about a mile from here for $4million dollars by a former college professor of mine who read a 25 page feasibility study I'd written as a grad student on the miniaturization of an implantable insulin-infusion pump. |
And yet more thievery. You would think that a person of such a high IQ, top .01% I am told, would know better or would know how not to get screwed and stolen from.
When I started my own company, I thought I'd patent some of the ideas in that paper and did a patent search. There was my idea, with my former professor's name on it, dated 1 month after I'd turned-in the paper.) Why didn't I sue? He already had $4million dollars in his pocket and could afford OJ's defense team, and I was borrowing money to pay the rent.
And of course there are no lawyers would take the case based upon outcome of the trial if you had such a rock-solid case.
And how odd that your old professor had a patent in only one month after you turned in your paper. That must have been some sort of record. Considering he or she managed to pull that miracle off, he or she could make even more millions by teaching others how to get a patent in one month.
QUOTE
Maybe *you* love people like that, but I don't, and it sounds like I know them better than you do.
No, it sounds like you are making up claims that are not supported by reality. So now we find out that you, a person who brags about being a member of the upper .01% of the population, has been stolen from on several occasions and on one occasion by a gifted professor who managed to get a patent in record-breaking time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe *you* love people like that, but I don't, and it sounds like I know them better than you do. |
No, it sounds like you are making up claims that are not supported by reality. So now we find out that you, a person who brags about being a member of the upper .01% of the population, has been stolen from on several occasions and on one occasion by a gifted professor who managed to get a patent in record-breaking time.
While Director of BioEngineering Research for the first company, I went to a NIH/NINDS symposium, and met a genius (I use the term only when it applies) there who had both a doctorate in Electrical Engineering and an MD, both from Stanford, and he'd done trials with rats where he'd perfected the means of interfacing integrated electronics with rat nerves, and had maintained both the health of the "tapped" nerve and the viability of the nerve signal sensor for over a year in his tests, him being able to both read nerve signals and generate them. He gave a presentation on his research, making the modest claim that if this were pursued and funded adequately, that it could viably be used to treat spinal paralysis in humans within ten years. The NIH/NINDS stomped on him with both feet, demanding that he publish a full retraction and denunciation of his presentation, under threat of him never receiving another dime of research funding in his career if he didn't. So, having said nothing wrong, he fabricated a rationale as to why his prior statements were false and issued a formal apology for having been so naive as to think that paralysis could be cured within ten years. And he halted all further research into curing paralysis. That was in '91.
This is just too funny. More claims with nothing to back them up but your hollow word. Any proof to back up this claims would be found where?
And again, the persecutor in this is yet another government organization.
Since you have a habit of making claim and not being able to back them up with any legitimate source, and rather than tell me to just go look it up again, how about you just give me the gentleman’s name who was “stomped” by the NIH/NINDS.
QUOTE
Find anything heartwarming in that story?
No, but it is amusing to hear your tall tales.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Find anything heartwarming in that story? |
No, but it is amusing to hear your tall tales.
It's true.
Sure it is.
QUOTE
I'd like to think otherwise, but I knew the guy, and wanted to partner my research with his and co-develop it, but the experience broke his spirit and he wants nothing more to do with any of it.
LOL. Right. Again, his name?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'd like to think otherwise, but I knew the guy, and wanted to partner my research with his and co-develop it, but the experience broke his spirit and he wants nothing more to do with any of it. |
LOL. Right. Again, his name?
It wasn't an example of any sort of "conspiracy" by the NIH with wheelchair manufacturers, it was simply that the upper echelon of NIH/NINDS has been studying paralysis for decades using the rat-brain-in-a-blender approach, and he was approaching the problem as an electrical engineer would, and they didn't like his presumption, his being in his early thirties, claiming he could cure what they'd been studying their entire career. (And planned to *continue* studying for the rest of their career.)
LOL. Right. We all need to believe that the NIH/NINDS would prefer to “stomp” out research due to their collective ego.
QUOTE
Sorry if my actual experiences in the field contradict the way you *think* things work, and it isn't a warm&fuzzy picture that lets you sleep soundly at night, but I went into the field hoping to help people, translating my defense technology background into advancing the bioengineering field (turning swords into plowshares) at the end of the Cold War, but found virtually the whole field rotten to the core.
Your experience, such as it is, it nothing more than a collection of tall tales from a person who has nothing to back up their claims other than an apparent hatred of the FDA, Big Pharam and the like.
You claimed you had your ideas stolen from you before while you were under a contract and either not comprehending or misrepresenting the fact that in such a contract, whatever you create under that contract is not owned by you.
And your person comments about and condemnations of me are moot to the subject of how what you claim is not supported by any facts or how you make unsupported claims about colloidal silver snake oil.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sorry if my actual experiences in the field contradict the way you *think* things work, and it isn't a warm&fuzzy picture that lets you sleep soundly at night, but I went into the field hoping to help people, translating my defense technology background into advancing the bioengineering field (turning swords into plowshares) at the end of the Cold War, but found virtually the whole field rotten to the core. |
Your experience, such as it is, it nothing more than a collection of tall tales from a person who has nothing to back up their claims other than an apparent hatred of the FDA, Big Pharam and the like.
You claimed you had your ideas stolen from you before while you were under a contract and either not comprehending or misrepresenting the fact that in such a contract, whatever you create under that contract is not owned by you.
And your person comments about and condemnations of me are moot to the subject of how what you claim is not supported by any facts or how you make unsupported claims about colloidal silver snake oil.
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by selfishness and ignorance."
Then tell me, why did you accuse me of being employed by Big Pharam when I challenged your unsupported claims about CS with the facts?
Why do you continue to use the same rhetoric regarding the cancer industry?
Why do you continue to post ever-more elaborate tall tales about corruption and thievery with nothing to support it?
And can you explain just how your old professor was able to get a patent supposedly on one of your ideas in only one month?
Care to cite what that patent was?
Who the professor was?
All of your tall tales may be seen as worthy on the snake oil sites and I’m sure they believe them without question, but for them to be seen as something other than just a collection of tall tales, you would have to provide something of substance here.
I’m sure you have some excuse for not being able to.
QUOTE
your condemnation of the FDA as not giving a damn about people and
The FDA is a REGULATORY AGENCY, and it DOESN'T give a damn about people. That doesn't mean they enter into conspiracies with wheelchair makers when someone approaches them with a potential cure for paralysis. That leap is yours and yours alone. Asserting that my "rhetoric" is similar to that of a CTer is no proof whatsoever that I'm a CTer, especially given the fact that I've explained it dozens of times that two entities can both dislike the same thing for different reasons without there being ANY conspiracy involved.
Are you really too thick to grasp that concept?
My opinions of the NIH are based on my own experiences with them, and I have mixed feelings about them because I've had mixed experiences with them. They granted me two research grants, and that was nice of them, and then denied a grant application by submitting it for review to someone who couldn't read or write English. It cost me my company. I have a right to despise them for doing that, it was despicable. They also forced a genius (an MD and a PhD in EE) to publicly humiliate himself under threat of "never seeing another dime of research funding" for developing a potential cure for paralysis. That, also, was despicable. Am I *compelled* to like people who do such things just because they work for the US government?
I can tell from your naivety that you have no such personal experience in dealing with the government, nor with corporations, which you seem to feel are run like charities, putting the Public Good over their own Bottom Line. They don't. If they do in your world, pray tell, what's the color of the sky where you live?
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
The FDA is a REGULATORY AGENCY, and it DOESN'T give a damn about people.
Back to your old rhetoric. At least you are being a bit more honest and not trying to sugar-coat your view of the FDA.
I thought it was the NIH/NINDS that denied or “stomped” a researcher and his research into submission and silence. Now it’s the FDA?
I thought it was the NIH/NINDS that denied or “stomped” a researcher and his research into submission and silence. Now it’s the FDA?
That leap is yours and yours alone.
Again, not at all. You continue to use the rhetoric of a conspiracy theorist al the while trying to claim you are not. And again, you may belief that you do not use the associated rhetoric and terminology, but I can and have pointed to your claims and actions that illustrate how you are a CT supporter.
Do I need to mention your accusation of me being employed by Big Pharma after I challenged your claims?
Not so. Your attempt to spin is just that. Again, your terminology, emotionally charged posts about the FDA, Big Pharma and such are all the proof I need to cite.
But, on top of that, we have you rather typical action of a member of a CT in your accusation that I was employed by Big Pharam. Odd how you keep avoiding that fact.
Not so. Your attempt to spin is just that. Again, your terminology, emotionally charged posts about the FDA, Big Pharma and such are all the proof I need to cite.
But, on top of that, we have you rather typical action of a member of a CT in your accusation that I was employed by Big Pharam. Odd how you keep avoiding that fact.
Are you really too thick to grasp that concept?
Posting more personal insults does nothing to rationally address your posts such as the ones I have cited. And again, your backpedal and spin simply does not reflect what you posted earlier. Then there are your odd and telling claims of recent post that still further support what I have stated.
And again, more claims of wrong-doing to you or your failure due to the nefarious actions of others. And again, nothing but your own word to support those claims.
And again, more claims of wrong-doing to you or your failure due to the nefarious actions of others. And again, nothing but your own word to support those claims.
They also forced a genius (an MD and a PhD in EE) to publicly humiliate himself under threat of "never seeing another dime of research funding" for developing a potential cure for paralysis. That, also, was despicable. Am I *compelled* to like people who do such things just because they work for the US government?
And repetition of another one of your tall tales. I note how you again failed to post anything to back up that claim. The brilliant researchers name for example?
And again, posting more insults about me does nothing to support your repetitious hollow claims.
How about your laughable crying foul when you created something under contract only to have what you created “stolen” according to you. Odd how you do not understand how such government contracts functions.
And where did I state that these companies should operate as charities? You keep posting your emotionally driven castigations of the FDA, the NIH and the like yet get alternative medicine corporations a pass.
You further castigate the FDA for blocking or suppressing research into what you claimed is a cure for cancer yet overlook the fact that the FDA does not control research around the world.
Then you post over and over your idea that insurance companies should put aside funds for such research as a preventative measure overlooking your own statement about corporations seeking to make a profit, answering to shareholders and putting the public good over their own bottom line.
Again, you selectively apply standards in a highly biased manner rather than to apply them constantly.
And again, posting more insults about me does nothing to support your repetitious hollow claims.
How about your laughable crying foul when you created something under contract only to have what you created “stolen” according to you. Odd how you do not understand how such government contracts functions.
And where did I state that these companies should operate as charities? You keep posting your emotionally driven castigations of the FDA, the NIH and the like yet get alternative medicine corporations a pass.
You further castigate the FDA for blocking or suppressing research into what you claimed is a cure for cancer yet overlook the fact that the FDA does not control research around the world.
Then you post over and over your idea that insurance companies should put aside funds for such research as a preventative measure overlooking your own statement about corporations seeking to make a profit, answering to shareholders and putting the public good over their own bottom line.
Again, you selectively apply standards in a highly biased manner rather than to apply them constantly.
They don't. If they do in your world, pray tell, what's the color of the sky where you live?
And more insults.
You can keep posting more and more spin, but in the end, your actions still portray you as an irrational CT supporter.
You claim to have been harmed or stolen from by a gaggle of people and corporations with nothing but your claims as proof. Such a persecution complex is also very common in supporters of conspiracy theories especially those who believe that they suffered at the hands of such entities as corporations and the government. Mr. Robin Parson is a more extreme example of such a persecution complex.
You fail to past anything to back up your claims other than repetition of those claims and expansion or embellishment of those claims.
Again, I point out how you accused me of working for Big Pharma after I challenged your unsupported claims regarding colloidal silver just as truthers accused me of being a government employee when I challenged their claims.
And then there are other claims that are simply not backed up by reality. Your claim that a former professor was able to acquire a patent one month after you turned in a paper in some class stealing your idea is not believable. What patent was it? Who was the teacher?
You can keep spinning and posting more insults about me, but your own posts, accusations and claims support what I have stated about you.
Your replies containing more personal insults and unsupported or simply unrealistic claims does nothing to change that fact.
So what is your next evasion or tactic? Are you going to claim that I work for the FDA or NIH now?
No, at this point, I'm convinced that you've never worked for either a corporation nor have had anything to do with scientific research. Perhaps you're still a student, assuming you don't sew Levi's together and are *posing* as something more than you are.
As for proof that I'm not a CTer, aside from explaining that I'm not and explaining why no conspiracy needs to exist when two entities each do the same thing for different reasons, I submit the fact that I started the "Insurance Companies should invest in cures" long before *YOU* ever asserted I was a CTer. Nowhere in that post does it assert that the FDA is conspiring with "Big Pharma".
I stated, there, that the insurance companies would *profit* from funding the research for cures, as they're the ones who are most-often stuck with the continuing monthly charges for *treatments* for chronic diseases, while "Big Pharma" (the term *YOU* used first, which is a CTer term, incidentally) funds research into the *treatments* that are more profitable than *cures*.
And, by the way, accusing me of being a "CTer" is an argumentum ad hominem, and is an invalid form of argument. Especially so, given that your only "evidence" is your interpretation of my "rhetoric" (and beyond that, YOU were the one to use the term "Big Pharma" first, before me, making YOU the one who's using "CTers' rhetoric").
Back to your old rhetoric. At least you are being a bit more honest and not trying to sugar-coat your view of the FDA.
QUOTE
That doesn't mean they enter into conspiracies with wheelchair makers when someone approaches them with a potential cure for paralysis.
I thought it was the NIH/NINDS that denied or “stomped” a researcher and his research into submission and silence. Now it’s the FDA?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That doesn't mean they enter into conspiracies with wheelchair makers when someone approaches them with a potential cure for paralysis. |
I thought it was the NIH/NINDS that denied or “stomped” a researcher and his research into submission and silence. Now it’s the FDA?
That leap is yours and yours alone.
Again, not at all. You continue to use the rhetoric of a conspiracy theorist al the while trying to claim you are not. And again, you may belief that you do not use the associated rhetoric and terminology, but I can and have pointed to your claims and actions that illustrate how you are a CT supporter.
Do I need to mention your accusation of me being employed by Big Pharma after I challenged your claims?
QUOTE
Asserting that my "rhetoric" is similar to that of a CTer is no proof whatsoever that I'm a CTer, especially given the fact that I've explained it dozens of times that two entities can both dislike the same thing for different reasons without there being ANY conspiracy involved.
Not so. Your attempt to spin is just that. Again, your terminology, emotionally charged posts about the FDA, Big Pharma and such are all the proof I need to cite.
But, on top of that, we have you rather typical action of a member of a CT in your accusation that I was employed by Big Pharam. Odd how you keep avoiding that fact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Asserting that my "rhetoric" is similar to that of a CTer is no proof whatsoever that I'm a CTer, especially given the fact that I've explained it dozens of times that two entities can both dislike the same thing for different reasons without there being ANY conspiracy involved. |
Not so. Your attempt to spin is just that. Again, your terminology, emotionally charged posts about the FDA, Big Pharma and such are all the proof I need to cite.
But, on top of that, we have you rather typical action of a member of a CT in your accusation that I was employed by Big Pharam. Odd how you keep avoiding that fact.
Are you really too thick to grasp that concept?
Posting more personal insults does nothing to rationally address your posts such as the ones I have cited. And again, your backpedal and spin simply does not reflect what you posted earlier. Then there are your odd and telling claims of recent post that still further support what I have stated.
QUOTE
My opinions of the NIH are based on my own experiences with them, and I have mixed feelings about them because I've had mixed experiences with them. They granted me two research grants, and that was nice of them, and then denied a grant application by submitting it for review to someone who couldn't read or write English. It cost me my company. I have a right to despise them for doing that, it was despicable.
And again, more claims of wrong-doing to you or your failure due to the nefarious actions of others. And again, nothing but your own word to support those claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My opinions of the NIH are based on my own experiences with them, and I have mixed feelings about them because I've had mixed experiences with them. They granted me two research grants, and that was nice of them, and then denied a grant application by submitting it for review to someone who couldn't read or write English. It cost me my company. I have a right to despise them for doing that, it was despicable. |
And again, more claims of wrong-doing to you or your failure due to the nefarious actions of others. And again, nothing but your own word to support those claims.
They also forced a genius (an MD and a PhD in EE) to publicly humiliate himself under threat of "never seeing another dime of research funding" for developing a potential cure for paralysis. That, also, was despicable. Am I *compelled* to like people who do such things just because they work for the US government?
And repetition of another one of your tall tales. I note how you again failed to post anything to back up that claim. The brilliant researchers name for example?
QUOTE
I can tell from your naivety that you have no such personal experience in dealing with the government, nor with corporations, which you seem to feel are run like charities, putting the Public Good over their own Bottom Line.
And again, posting more insults about me does nothing to support your repetitious hollow claims.
How about your laughable crying foul when you created something under contract only to have what you created “stolen” according to you. Odd how you do not understand how such government contracts functions.
And where did I state that these companies should operate as charities? You keep posting your emotionally driven castigations of the FDA, the NIH and the like yet get alternative medicine corporations a pass.
You further castigate the FDA for blocking or suppressing research into what you claimed is a cure for cancer yet overlook the fact that the FDA does not control research around the world.
Then you post over and over your idea that insurance companies should put aside funds for such research as a preventative measure overlooking your own statement about corporations seeking to make a profit, answering to shareholders and putting the public good over their own bottom line.
Again, you selectively apply standards in a highly biased manner rather than to apply them constantly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can tell from your naivety that you have no such personal experience in dealing with the government, nor with corporations, which you seem to feel are run like charities, putting the Public Good over their own Bottom Line. |
And again, posting more insults about me does nothing to support your repetitious hollow claims.
How about your laughable crying foul when you created something under contract only to have what you created “stolen” according to you. Odd how you do not understand how such government contracts functions.
And where did I state that these companies should operate as charities? You keep posting your emotionally driven castigations of the FDA, the NIH and the like yet get alternative medicine corporations a pass.
You further castigate the FDA for blocking or suppressing research into what you claimed is a cure for cancer yet overlook the fact that the FDA does not control research around the world.
Then you post over and over your idea that insurance companies should put aside funds for such research as a preventative measure overlooking your own statement about corporations seeking to make a profit, answering to shareholders and putting the public good over their own bottom line.
Again, you selectively apply standards in a highly biased manner rather than to apply them constantly.
They don't. If they do in your world, pray tell, what's the color of the sky where you live?
And more insults.
You can keep posting more and more spin, but in the end, your actions still portray you as an irrational CT supporter.
You claim to have been harmed or stolen from by a gaggle of people and corporations with nothing but your claims as proof. Such a persecution complex is also very common in supporters of conspiracy theories especially those who believe that they suffered at the hands of such entities as corporations and the government. Mr. Robin Parson is a more extreme example of such a persecution complex.
You fail to past anything to back up your claims other than repetition of those claims and expansion or embellishment of those claims.
Again, I point out how you accused me of working for Big Pharma after I challenged your unsupported claims regarding colloidal silver just as truthers accused me of being a government employee when I challenged their claims.
And then there are other claims that are simply not backed up by reality. Your claim that a former professor was able to acquire a patent one month after you turned in a paper in some class stealing your idea is not believable. What patent was it? Who was the teacher?
You can keep spinning and posting more insults about me, but your own posts, accusations and claims support what I have stated about you.
Your replies containing more personal insults and unsupported or simply unrealistic claims does nothing to change that fact.
So what is your next evasion or tactic? Are you going to claim that I work for the FDA or NIH now?
QUOTE
Are you going to claim that I work for the FDA or NIH now?
No, at this point, I'm convinced that you've never worked for either a corporation nor have had anything to do with scientific research. Perhaps you're still a student, assuming you don't sew Levi's together and are *posing* as something more than you are.
As for proof that I'm not a CTer, aside from explaining that I'm not and explaining why no conspiracy needs to exist when two entities each do the same thing for different reasons, I submit the fact that I started the "Insurance Companies should invest in cures" long before *YOU* ever asserted I was a CTer. Nowhere in that post does it assert that the FDA is conspiring with "Big Pharma".
I stated, there, that the insurance companies would *profit* from funding the research for cures, as they're the ones who are most-often stuck with the continuing monthly charges for *treatments* for chronic diseases, while "Big Pharma" (the term *YOU* used first, which is a CTer term, incidentally) funds research into the *treatments* that are more profitable than *cures*.
And, by the way, accusing me of being a "CTer" is an argumentum ad hominem, and is an invalid form of argument. Especially so, given that your only "evidence" is your interpretation of my "rhetoric" (and beyond that, YOU were the one to use the term "Big Pharma" first, before me, making YOU the one who's using "CTers' rhetoric").
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
No, at this point, I'm convinced that you've never worked for either a corporation nor have had anything to do with scientific research.
And again, more personal insults. Where is the fact backing up all of your claims?
Again, you posts seem to be lacking such substance.
Wow. Is that the best you can do? I mean last time you resorted to alteration of my user name. Now you try to castigate me by insinuating that I am a menial laborer.
Odd isn’t it how one possessive of such a claimed intellect as yourself can neither conduct themselves in a rational manner and who see fit to think lesser of people who work in manufacturing.
Wow. Is that the best you can do? I mean last time you resorted to alteration of my user name. Now you try to castigate me by insinuating that I am a menial laborer.
Odd isn’t it how one possessive of such a claimed intellect as yourself can neither conduct themselves in a rational manner and who see fit to think lesser of people who work in manufacturing.
As for proof that I'm not a CTer, aside from explaining that I'm not and explaining why no conspiracy needs to exist when two entities each do the same thing for different reasons, I submit the fact that I started the "Insurance Companies should invest in cures" long before *YOU* ever asserted I was a CTer. Nowhere in that post does it assert that the FDA is conspiring with "Big Pharma".
And such a post and information is irrelevant in the face of what you have posted not only here but across the web. All one has to do is to google your forum name to find the same post I did where you espouce the typical claim of a CT supporter.
And again, there is your accusation that I worked for Big Pharma after I questioned your unsubstantiated claims regarding the snake oil colloidal silver.
Really? Then care to explain why you yourself used that term on May 5th in this post?
Source Link
Really? Then care to explain why you yourself used that term on May 5th in this post?
Source Link
So maybe if the FDA is less interested in curing people than protecting its turf, and Big Pharma is only interested in profits, and Insurance Companies are too short-sighted to fund inexpensive *cures* rather than just keep raising premiums,
Again, your track record is one of a CT supporter and your equivocations do not change that fact.
And, just as with any other corporation, insurance companies would be no more inclined to pay for such research.
And again, why does all the multi-million dollar alternative medicine corporation not fund what you have labeled as cures for cancer? That is yet another question you keep avoiding.
I see your understanding of logical fallacies is as lacking as material proof to support your tall tales.
Since you and your claimed knowledge, your claimed past experience in the biomedical industry and your claimed cases of being stolen from over an over and over again are part of the discussion and so is your claims regarding medical research, biotech industries and organizations like the FDA and NIH, what you claim and how they paint you is not only relevant but does not qualify as an ad hominem attack.
Dismissing me in a castigation as a factory worker, something you obviously look down upon, a employee of the FDA or Big Pharma, a student or just a youth after I question and illustrate the hollowness of your claims would be an example of an ad hominem.
I see your understanding of logical fallacies is as lacking as material proof to support your tall tales.
Since you and your claimed knowledge, your claimed past experience in the biomedical industry and your claimed cases of being stolen from over an over and over again are part of the discussion and so is your claims regarding medical research, biotech industries and organizations like the FDA and NIH, what you claim and how they paint you is not only relevant but does not qualify as an ad hominem attack.
Dismissing me in a castigation as a factory worker, something you obviously look down upon, a employee of the FDA or Big Pharma, a student or just a youth after I question and illustrate the hollowness of your claims would be an example of an ad hominem.
Especially so, given that your only "evidence" is your interpretation of my "rhetoric" (and beyond that, YOU were the one to use the term "Big Pharma" first, before me, making YOU the one who's using "CTers' rhetoric").
And again, not so I have illustrated. Perhaps next time you wish to claim that you are not a supporter of a conspiracy theory or have not used a term, you should refrain from posting CT claims and using such terms in other forums.
And again, you fail to produce anything to back up your litany of rather tall tales and claims.
No name of the man who the NIH “stomped” into giving up his research.
No name of the professor who stole from you.
No explanation how the said former professor was able to get a patent in one month.
That doesn’t even begin to address your claim that work performed under a contracted position was “stolen” from you.
Just how a person with a professed IQ placing him in the upper .01% of the population was stolen from again and again and again.
If the wire you mentioned before was the infamous silver wire used in the production of colloidal silver, a product you constantly singng the praises of while claiming not to be making money from it.
And then there is your use of such terminology as suppressing and blocking when you claim that the FDA is keeping CS out of the hands of the people even after pointing out that the FDA cannot regulate something that anyone can make.
Why do you condemn or critique Big Pharma for being for profit but give a pass to alternative medicine companies?
And while condemning the FDA, you do not address the fact that it does not control the research of the world. So why do other countries also make similar bans on CS and why would the so-called cures for cancer not be pursued?
Again, post more insults about me and keep avoiding the facts regarding your tall tales, your hollow claims, you rhetoric in support of a CT and your inability to act in a rational manner one would expect from a person claiming to be possessing such a high IQ.
And if your claim of being such a person is true and you did not simply fake your way into such a society, then how sad is it that you are unable to rationally defend or even support your claims against a person such as I who, by your own comments and castigations, see as such a lesser and lowly person in comparison?
That famous line Kirk launched at Kahn is coming to mind again.
So, I ask again, what is your next evasion?
And again, more personal insults. Where is the fact backing up all of your claims?
Again, you posts seem to be lacking such substance.
QUOTE
Perhaps you're still a student, assuming you don't sew Levi's together and are *posing* as something more than you are.
Wow. Is that the best you can do? I mean last time you resorted to alteration of my user name. Now you try to castigate me by insinuating that I am a menial laborer.
Odd isn’t it how one possessive of such a claimed intellect as yourself can neither conduct themselves in a rational manner and who see fit to think lesser of people who work in manufacturing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you're still a student, assuming you don't sew Levi's together and are *posing* as something more than you are. |
Wow. Is that the best you can do? I mean last time you resorted to alteration of my user name. Now you try to castigate me by insinuating that I am a menial laborer.
Odd isn’t it how one possessive of such a claimed intellect as yourself can neither conduct themselves in a rational manner and who see fit to think lesser of people who work in manufacturing.
As for proof that I'm not a CTer, aside from explaining that I'm not and explaining why no conspiracy needs to exist when two entities each do the same thing for different reasons, I submit the fact that I started the "Insurance Companies should invest in cures" long before *YOU* ever asserted I was a CTer. Nowhere in that post does it assert that the FDA is conspiring with "Big Pharma".
And such a post and information is irrelevant in the face of what you have posted not only here but across the web. All one has to do is to google your forum name to find the same post I did where you espouce the typical claim of a CT supporter.
And again, there is your accusation that I worked for Big Pharma after I questioned your unsubstantiated claims regarding the snake oil colloidal silver.
QUOTE
I stated, there, that the insurance companies would *profit* from funding the research for cures, as they're the ones who are most-often stuck with the continuing monthly charges for *treatments* for chronic diseases, while "Big Pharma" (the term *YOU* used first, which is a CTer term, incidentally) funds research into the *treatments* that are more profitable than *cures*.
Really? Then care to explain why you yourself used that term on May 5th in this post?
Source Link
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I stated, there, that the insurance companies would *profit* from funding the research for cures, as they're the ones who are most-often stuck with the continuing monthly charges for *treatments* for chronic diseases, while "Big Pharma" (the term *YOU* used first, which is a CTer term, incidentally) funds research into the *treatments* that are more profitable than *cures*. |
Really? Then care to explain why you yourself used that term on May 5th in this post?
Source Link
So maybe if the FDA is less interested in curing people than protecting its turf, and Big Pharma is only interested in profits, and Insurance Companies are too short-sighted to fund inexpensive *cures* rather than just keep raising premiums,
Again, your track record is one of a CT supporter and your equivocations do not change that fact.
And, just as with any other corporation, insurance companies would be no more inclined to pay for such research.
And again, why does all the multi-million dollar alternative medicine corporation not fund what you have labeled as cures for cancer? That is yet another question you keep avoiding.
QUOTE
And, by the way, accusing me of being a "CTer" is an argumentum ad hominem, and is an invalid form of argument.
I see your understanding of logical fallacies is as lacking as material proof to support your tall tales.
Since you and your claimed knowledge, your claimed past experience in the biomedical industry and your claimed cases of being stolen from over an over and over again are part of the discussion and so is your claims regarding medical research, biotech industries and organizations like the FDA and NIH, what you claim and how they paint you is not only relevant but does not qualify as an ad hominem attack.
Dismissing me in a castigation as a factory worker, something you obviously look down upon, a employee of the FDA or Big Pharma, a student or just a youth after I question and illustrate the hollowness of your claims would be an example of an ad hominem.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And, by the way, accusing me of being a "CTer" is an argumentum ad hominem, and is an invalid form of argument. |
I see your understanding of logical fallacies is as lacking as material proof to support your tall tales.
Since you and your claimed knowledge, your claimed past experience in the biomedical industry and your claimed cases of being stolen from over an over and over again are part of the discussion and so is your claims regarding medical research, biotech industries and organizations like the FDA and NIH, what you claim and how they paint you is not only relevant but does not qualify as an ad hominem attack.
Dismissing me in a castigation as a factory worker, something you obviously look down upon, a employee of the FDA or Big Pharma, a student or just a youth after I question and illustrate the hollowness of your claims would be an example of an ad hominem.
Especially so, given that your only "evidence" is your interpretation of my "rhetoric" (and beyond that, YOU were the one to use the term "Big Pharma" first, before me, making YOU the one who's using "CTers' rhetoric").
And again, not so I have illustrated. Perhaps next time you wish to claim that you are not a supporter of a conspiracy theory or have not used a term, you should refrain from posting CT claims and using such terms in other forums.
And again, you fail to produce anything to back up your litany of rather tall tales and claims.
No name of the man who the NIH “stomped” into giving up his research.
No name of the professor who stole from you.
No explanation how the said former professor was able to get a patent in one month.
That doesn’t even begin to address your claim that work performed under a contracted position was “stolen” from you.
Just how a person with a professed IQ placing him in the upper .01% of the population was stolen from again and again and again.
If the wire you mentioned before was the infamous silver wire used in the production of colloidal silver, a product you constantly singng the praises of while claiming not to be making money from it.
And then there is your use of such terminology as suppressing and blocking when you claim that the FDA is keeping CS out of the hands of the people even after pointing out that the FDA cannot regulate something that anyone can make.
Why do you condemn or critique Big Pharma for being for profit but give a pass to alternative medicine companies?
And while condemning the FDA, you do not address the fact that it does not control the research of the world. So why do other countries also make similar bans on CS and why would the so-called cures for cancer not be pursued?
Again, post more insults about me and keep avoiding the facts regarding your tall tales, your hollow claims, you rhetoric in support of a CT and your inability to act in a rational manner one would expect from a person claiming to be possessing such a high IQ.
And if your claim of being such a person is true and you did not simply fake your way into such a society, then how sad is it that you are unable to rationally defend or even support your claims against a person such as I who, by your own comments and castigations, see as such a lesser and lowly person in comparison?
That famous line Kirk launched at Kahn is coming to mind again.
So, I ask again, what is your next evasion?
I see no need to defend myself from your litany of misrepresentations. Nothing you've accused me of is true (or logical), none of my statements support your assertion that I'm a "CTer".
The people/experiences I've mentioned are true, names withheld because real people have real feelings, and I doubt that the people I've identified as thieves would hesitate to sue me for defamation, and adults recognize that lawsuits, even when you're innocent, are too expensive to expose yourself to just to make a point to an idiot/troll like yourself. The PhD/MD from Stanford would also, likely, not appreciate my identifying him by name, as it was a painful experience for him, and a humiliating one, and one can only imagine how he feels every time he passes someone in a wheelchair, knowing that he could've cured them in a more-just world.
And I don't even know what you're talking about when you're saying that I claimed someone stole an idea of mine that I was under-contract to develop. (Certainly, you don't know what you're talking about either, but that's nothing new.) Unless your limited reading comprehension misinterpreted my account of the time I was pursuing a consulting contract with a company I'd previously worked *with* (not *for*), and found a Patent Application on an invention of mine on the company president's desk, my drawing (off my own printer) pasted on the front page of the patent application, with my name as Inventor and the words "Proprietary Information" cropped off the drawing. The invention was disclosed to him under a "non-disclosure agreement" which clearly stated that the invention was *my* property, disclosed to his company under the legal agreement that he wouldn't disclose it to anyone else, nor that he would attempt to patent it as his own.
If you wish to verify how I got into ISPE, feel free to contact the President of ISPE, and tell him I said hello. And brace yourself, he's more likely to call you worse names for questioning my status within ISPE than I ever have.
Oh, and the silver wire you were discussing was for making an electromagnet for an implantable solenoid valve - the wire was silver because it has the highest conductivity (so has the least resistive losses) and insulated, and was the thickness of a human hair. It's certainly more expensive than the Canadian Maple Leafs I have in case the FDA actually bans the sale of Colloidal Silver, as you mistakenly thought they had.
The people/experiences I've mentioned are true, names withheld because real people have real feelings, and I doubt that the people I've identified as thieves would hesitate to sue me for defamation, and adults recognize that lawsuits, even when you're innocent, are too expensive to expose yourself to just to make a point to an idiot/troll like yourself. The PhD/MD from Stanford would also, likely, not appreciate my identifying him by name, as it was a painful experience for him, and a humiliating one, and one can only imagine how he feels every time he passes someone in a wheelchair, knowing that he could've cured them in a more-just world.
And I don't even know what you're talking about when you're saying that I claimed someone stole an idea of mine that I was under-contract to develop. (Certainly, you don't know what you're talking about either, but that's nothing new.) Unless your limited reading comprehension misinterpreted my account of the time I was pursuing a consulting contract with a company I'd previously worked *with* (not *for*), and found a Patent Application on an invention of mine on the company president's desk, my drawing (off my own printer) pasted on the front page of the patent application, with my name as Inventor and the words "Proprietary Information" cropped off the drawing. The invention was disclosed to him under a "non-disclosure agreement" which clearly stated that the invention was *my* property, disclosed to his company under the legal agreement that he wouldn't disclose it to anyone else, nor that he would attempt to patent it as his own.
If you wish to verify how I got into ISPE, feel free to contact the President of ISPE, and tell him I said hello. And brace yourself, he's more likely to call you worse names for questioning my status within ISPE than I ever have.
Oh, and the silver wire you were discussing was for making an electromagnet for an implantable solenoid valve - the wire was silver because it has the highest conductivity (so has the least resistive losses) and insulated, and was the thickness of a human hair. It's certainly more expensive than the Canadian Maple Leafs I have in case the FDA actually bans the sale of Colloidal Silver, as you mistakenly thought they had.
QUOTE (Capracus+Jul 8 2008, 11:28 AM)
In most cases chemo and radiation are not intended to be a cure for cancer, only a complimentary treatment. Unfortunately, when chemotherapy and radiation are the only treatment options, those cases will have a high mortality rate regardless of the treatment.
Any good oncologist would love to have a legitimate treatment option in their arsenal, the problem is that these alternatives you refer to have not been experimentally proven to their satisfaction.
I appreciate your honesty here, I wish the physicians treating were as honest. They will tell the patient that it "treats" cancer, and the patient hears the words "cure" cancer. Serious miscommunication, but it is usually quite intentional on the physicians part. and this is not to say they all run this line, but many do.
You also mention that they have not been proven to their satisfaction, which is also correct, usually holistic or naturopathic treatments treat the patient as a whole with multiple aspects, not a single pill or IV fluid then sit back and measure effects of those drugs. The largest single issue with oncology is that they attack the tumor, not the CAUSE of the tumor. and the tumor is nothing more than a symptom of something else that is broken, be it genetics, environment, food intake, whatever...
There is, however, several pretty neat treatments in testing, including:
Radio Wave Treatments
Heart Peptide Treatments
However, I have heard of "great treatments coming" for many years. I lost my first wife to pancreatic cancer in 2001, and my current wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005. My mom died from lung cancer in 1999, and my wife's mom died from cancer a few weeks ago... each one tried something different, and my wife, who chose naturopathic is the only one that seems to have defeated it. (We have a PET scan results coming in the next couple of days). So I wait on pins and needles...
To the point, the patient must take responsibility for their disease, and do their own research. To bet that an oncologist has all the answers is foolhardy.
That, .75 cents, 14% city tax, 18% state tax, and 35% federal tax, for a total of $1.25 will buy you a cup of coffee.
MM
Any good oncologist would love to have a legitimate treatment option in their arsenal, the problem is that these alternatives you refer to have not been experimentally proven to their satisfaction.
I appreciate your honesty here, I wish the physicians treating were as honest. They will tell the patient that it "treats" cancer, and the patient hears the words "cure" cancer. Serious miscommunication, but it is usually quite intentional on the physicians part. and this is not to say they all run this line, but many do.
You also mention that they have not been proven to their satisfaction, which is also correct, usually holistic or naturopathic treatments treat the patient as a whole with multiple aspects, not a single pill or IV fluid then sit back and measure effects of those drugs. The largest single issue with oncology is that they attack the tumor, not the CAUSE of the tumor. and the tumor is nothing more than a symptom of something else that is broken, be it genetics, environment, food intake, whatever...
There is, however, several pretty neat treatments in testing, including:
Radio Wave Treatments
Heart Peptide Treatments
However, I have heard of "great treatments coming" for many years. I lost my first wife to pancreatic cancer in 2001, and my current wife was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005. My mom died from lung cancer in 1999, and my wife's mom died from cancer a few weeks ago... each one tried something different, and my wife, who chose naturopathic is the only one that seems to have defeated it. (We have a PET scan results coming in the next couple of days). So I wait on pins and needles...
To the point, the patient must take responsibility for their disease, and do their own research. To bet that an oncologist has all the answers is foolhardy.
That, .75 cents, 14% city tax, 18% state tax, and 35% federal tax, for a total of $1.25 will buy you a cup of coffee.
MM
I certainly appreciate hearing from someone other than a troll on this issue, but I want to make it clear that I consider MDs as heroes (for the most part), even though many oncologists end up killing many cancer victims by accident.
My point isn't that doctors know of cures that they keep to themselves, but that pharmaceutical companies use their R&D budgets to pursue what's most likely to provide the greatest profit, and, for instance, someone diagnosed as being HIV+ has an average life expectancy of 23 years (last I heard), and the "cocktail" costs about $1000/month (last I heard). Doing the numbers, that means the pharmaceutical companies have an expectation of selling about $275,000-worth of medication to the average just-diagnosed HIV+ patient. If someone were to develop a one-shot cure for AIDS, how much could they charge for that one shot? Certainly, they couldn't justify charging $275,000 for one shot of medicine. For that reason, and that reason alone, R&D funds for *cures* never quite arrive, and the researchers have to go panhandling, as GeneSplicer's "Official DCA Website" clearly indicates. They provided an optimistic scenario about how they could complete human trials by the end of 2007, and below that, an update requesting donations from private individuals for funding the human trials that they've, to-date, failed to receive any funding from any pharmaceutical company. (It should also be noted that the DCA website looking for funds is a *Canadian university* website, not a US company.)
It should also be noted that the original article that got me interested in CS was published right here on PhysOrg, referring to research done at another University, this one in Texas.
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6
They don't make the claim that CS *kills* HIV-1, they say it disables its ability to attach to cells, the first step in infection. I think that this is a more accurate description of how it works, especially considering the wide range of pathogens it's been shown effective against. Antibiotics kill bacteria, anti-virals work only against viruses (usually specific ones), anti-fungals against fungi, etc., but CS has been shown effective against all of the above, including the toughest ones in each category (e.g., HIV-1, MRSA, Malaria...). There was another recent article in PhysOrg News about how Sudden Oak Death had virulent enzymes that it used on the cell walls of oak trees, which coincidentally were of the same family as enzymes known to be used by malaria to infect blood cells. There's the key that all pathogens have in common - they have to attach to cell walls/membranes in order to invade and infect the cell. Having one type of enzyme that's used both for infecting oak trees and human blood cells implies that that's an ancient enzyme, one created prior to the evolutionary split between plants and animals. The electron microphotographs in the link, above, show that the silver nanoparticles appear to selectively bind to one specific enzyme, the one used to adhere the HIV-1 virus to the cell membrane.
Another recent article published here on PhysOrg News described "Superatoms" made up of stable clusters of specific numbers of silver atoms that form spontaneously in a vacuum. It occurs to me that if those clusters are stable at those specific numbers of atoms (e.g., 37), that they would likely be *unstable* at numbers between the stable ones, and silver is one of those natural catalysts, like platinum. Functionally, enzymes do the same thing as catalysts, just for bigger molecules, so bigger catalysts could conceivably bind to the active sites of enzymes. The link, above, states that the only silver nanoparticles that appeared to bind to the enzymes were in the range of 1-10 nanometers in diameter, which is about the same scale as the active sites of enzymes.
This would also explain why bacteria in a growth medium wouldn't be affected by CS, the "test" that the FDA used to brand CS as quackery. Growth media don't have nutrients stored inside cell membranes, so even if the bacteria were totally incapable of infecting a living cell due to silver nanoparticles attached to their "virulence" sites, they could easily thrive in the growth media provided.
Of course, doctors are limited in what medications they can use in treating their patients by many factors, but basically, anytime they deviate from FDA-approved medications, they're subject to losing their licenses. Catch-22, you can't do human trials in the US without FDA approval, and they've already declared CS as quackery, so any researcher approaching the government looking for research funds into CS as a cure for anything has just antagonized the FDA, which will simply deny human trials that might prove them wrong.
For cancer, I recommend that you look into the information provided by the Linus Pauling Institute in Oregon. He accurately predicted and demonstrated how large doses of Vitamin C killed cancerous cells, and also stated that the doses had to be taken intravenously, as the digestive system saturates at a point far below that at which cancerous cells die-off. The hatchet-job research used to brand Pauling a "quack" conveniently ignored the recommended protocol (IV-infusion) and failed to achieve blood concentrations that would be lethal to cancer cells. This research was originally done back in the '70's and '80's, but only recently repeated in mice (which produce their own Vitamin C - Humans lack the gene that most other animals have, and most other animals produce Vitamin C in massive doses as a matter of routine). That research also supported Pauling's claims, right down to the method by which the Vitamin C kills the cancerous cells (generating hydrogen peroxide, which is more toxic to cancer cells than normal cells).
My point isn't that doctors know of cures that they keep to themselves, but that pharmaceutical companies use their R&D budgets to pursue what's most likely to provide the greatest profit, and, for instance, someone diagnosed as being HIV+ has an average life expectancy of 23 years (last I heard), and the "cocktail" costs about $1000/month (last I heard). Doing the numbers, that means the pharmaceutical companies have an expectation of selling about $275,000-worth of medication to the average just-diagnosed HIV+ patient. If someone were to develop a one-shot cure for AIDS, how much could they charge for that one shot? Certainly, they couldn't justify charging $275,000 for one shot of medicine. For that reason, and that reason alone, R&D funds for *cures* never quite arrive, and the researchers have to go panhandling, as GeneSplicer's "Official DCA Website" clearly indicates. They provided an optimistic scenario about how they could complete human trials by the end of 2007, and below that, an update requesting donations from private individuals for funding the human trials that they've, to-date, failed to receive any funding from any pharmaceutical company. (It should also be noted that the DCA website looking for funds is a *Canadian university* website, not a US company.)
It should also be noted that the original article that got me interested in CS was published right here on PhysOrg, referring to research done at another University, this one in Texas.
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6
They don't make the claim that CS *kills* HIV-1, they say it disables its ability to attach to cells, the first step in infection. I think that this is a more accurate description of how it works, especially considering the wide range of pathogens it's been shown effective against. Antibiotics kill bacteria, anti-virals work only against viruses (usually specific ones), anti-fungals against fungi, etc., but CS has been shown effective against all of the above, including the toughest ones in each category (e.g., HIV-1, MRSA, Malaria...). There was another recent article in PhysOrg News about how Sudden Oak Death had virulent enzymes that it used on the cell walls of oak trees, which coincidentally were of the same family as enzymes known to be used by malaria to infect blood cells. There's the key that all pathogens have in common - they have to attach to cell walls/membranes in order to invade and infect the cell. Having one type of enzyme that's used both for infecting oak trees and human blood cells implies that that's an ancient enzyme, one created prior to the evolutionary split between plants and animals. The electron microphotographs in the link, above, show that the silver nanoparticles appear to selectively bind to one specific enzyme, the one used to adhere the HIV-1 virus to the cell membrane.
Another recent article published here on PhysOrg News described "Superatoms" made up of stable clusters of specific numbers of silver atoms that form spontaneously in a vacuum. It occurs to me that if those clusters are stable at those specific numbers of atoms (e.g., 37), that they would likely be *unstable* at numbers between the stable ones, and silver is one of those natural catalysts, like platinum. Functionally, enzymes do the same thing as catalysts, just for bigger molecules, so bigger catalysts could conceivably bind to the active sites of enzymes. The link, above, states that the only silver nanoparticles that appeared to bind to the enzymes were in the range of 1-10 nanometers in diameter, which is about the same scale as the active sites of enzymes.
This would also explain why bacteria in a growth medium wouldn't be affected by CS, the "test" that the FDA used to brand CS as quackery. Growth media don't have nutrients stored inside cell membranes, so even if the bacteria were totally incapable of infecting a living cell due to silver nanoparticles attached to their "virulence" sites, they could easily thrive in the growth media provided.
Of course, doctors are limited in what medications they can use in treating their patients by many factors, but basically, anytime they deviate from FDA-approved medications, they're subject to losing their licenses. Catch-22, you can't do human trials in the US without FDA approval, and they've already declared CS as quackery, so any researcher approaching the government looking for research funds into CS as a cure for anything has just antagonized the FDA, which will simply deny human trials that might prove them wrong.
For cancer, I recommend that you look into the information provided by the Linus Pauling Institute in Oregon. He accurately predicted and demonstrated how large doses of Vitamin C killed cancerous cells, and also stated that the doses had to be taken intravenously, as the digestive system saturates at a point far below that at which cancerous cells die-off. The hatchet-job research used to brand Pauling a "quack" conveniently ignored the recommended protocol (IV-infusion) and failed to achieve blood concentrations that would be lethal to cancer cells. This research was originally done back in the '70's and '80's, but only recently repeated in mice (which produce their own Vitamin C - Humans lack the gene that most other animals have, and most other animals produce Vitamin C in massive doses as a matter of routine). That research also supported Pauling's claims, right down to the method by which the Vitamin C kills the cancerous cells (generating hydrogen peroxide, which is more toxic to cancer cells than normal cells).
As an aside, I believe the DCA people received enough money (via donations and grants) to begin a specific study in humans and that they're currently recruiting such people in the Edmonton area.
I've really got my fingers crossed on that one, because DCA will be pretty easy to use if it's shown to be effective. And having a cheap tool in the battle against cancer would really lighten the load.
I've really got my fingers crossed on that one, because DCA will be pretty easy to use if it's shown to be effective. And having a cheap tool in the battle against cancer would really lighten the load.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
I see no need to defend myself from your litany of misrepresentations.
So you did not accuse me of being an employee of Big Pharma when I chalking your claims regarding colloidal silver?
You have not made claim that are simply not supported by reality like your claim that a teacher who stole form you was able to get a patent in one month when on average it takes 20 to 24 months to get a patent?
How about the researcher who was “stomped” into giving up his research?
I know you see no need to defend yourself, but you also see not need in providing anything but your hollow claims, castigations and tall tales.
So you did not accuse me of being an employee of Big Pharma when I chalking your claims regarding colloidal silver?
You have not made claim that are simply not supported by reality like your claim that a teacher who stole form you was able to get a patent in one month when on average it takes 20 to 24 months to get a patent?
How about the researcher who was “stomped” into giving up his research?
I know you see no need to defend yourself, but you also see not need in providing anything but your hollow claims, castigations and tall tales.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Nothing you've accused me of is true (or logical),
And again, that is not true. You have resorted to making comments about me being a factory working, something you seem to look down upon, or an uneducated youth rather than to back up your claims.
Care to explain why you accused me of being employed by big pharama when I challenged your claims or are you going to lie and claim you never did?
And you can keep parroting that claim over and over, but I have shown just how you are a supporter of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theory.
Again, no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
And you can keep parroting that claim over and over, but I have shown just how you are a supporter of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theory.
Again, no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
The people/experiences I've mentioned are true, names withheld because real people have real feelings,
Right. So funny how that always seems to be the case when a conspiracy theorist mentions someone harmed but cannot produce a name.
Again, standard cop-out from those who claim to have been persecuted or, as in your case, had their ideas “stolen” form them.
Again, standard cop-out from those who claim to have been persecuted or, as in your case, had their ideas “stolen” form them.
and adults recognize that lawsuits, even when you're innocent, are too expensive to expose yourself to just to make a point to an idiot/troll like yourself.
And “adults” don’t have to resort to name calling, insults or trying to lessen others by claiming they are some form of laborer you look down upon.
The fact remains that you have made claims that are simply nonsensical, are backed by nothing but your claims and simply lack verisimilitude.
Yes, more embellishment of your tall tale. If you have no names to back that tall tale up, then that is all it is.
Yes, more embellishment of your tall tale. If you have no names to back that tall tale up, then that is all it is.
And I don't even know what you're talking about when you're saying that I claimed someone stole an idea of mine that I was under-contract to develop. (Certainly, you don't know what you're talking about either, but that's nothing new.)
You complained before that while you were a contractor that you ideas were stolen. And again, all you have are insults. Such and odd thing for one who claim to be speaking form fact to have to resort to.
And the patent number would be? The company involved? Again, just another one of your tall tales with no facts to back it up.
And the patent number would be? The company involved? Again, just another one of your tall tales with no facts to back it up.
If you wish to verify how I got into ISPE, feel free to contact the President of ISPE, and tell him I said hello.
Why would I bother with an organization with such lax entrance requirements? I pointed out earlier just how they accept results from exams that are not monitored.
Strawman much? I never questioned your status in the organization. I commented on its lax entrance requirements.
If you are typical for a member of such a lax organization, then I would not be surprised. Again, it is odd just how a person claiming to be possessive of such a high IQ, and who evidently sees most of humanity as lesser beings, has to resort to name calling, child-like pouting feedback and is unable to back up their claims.
Strawman much? I never questioned your status in the organization. I commented on its lax entrance requirements.
If you are typical for a member of such a lax organization, then I would not be surprised. Again, it is odd just how a person claiming to be possessive of such a high IQ, and who evidently sees most of humanity as lesser beings, has to resort to name calling, child-like pouting feedback and is unable to back up their claims.
Oh, and the silver wire you were discussing was for making an electromagnet for an implantable solenoid valve - the wire was silver because it has the highest conductivity (so has the least resistive losses) and insulated, and was the thickness of a human hair.
LOL. This is too funny. So I was right that the wire was silver? Care to comment about reading comprehension again? You don’t even remember what you yourself posted.
You see, you just mentioned wire. Since I know that you are a faith-based supported of the snake oil known as colloidal silver, and I know that the most common way it is produced is by the use of silver wire, I was the one to ask if the wire you mentioned was silver.
It is just too funny that I was right, but not quite as funny as your attempt at spin.
But the FDA has banned the sale of colloidal silver for the treatment of any disease or ailment.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m137..._33/ai_57800117
But the FDA has banned the sale of colloidal silver for the treatment of any disease or ailment.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m137..._33/ai_57800117
Under a rule recently finalized by FDA, drug products containing colloidal silver or silver salts are not recognized as safe and effective. These products, labeled to treat a wide variety of illnesses in adults and children, including AIDS, cancer, syphilis, scarlet fever, shingles, herpes, and pneumonia, have caused some people's skin to take on a permanent blue-gray discoloration.
FDA concluded that colloidal silver products (suspensions of silver particles in a gelatinous base) are misbranded because adequate directions cannot be written to allow consumers to use them safely. These products are also misbranded, FDA said, when their labeling falsely suggests that there is substantial scientific evidence to establish that they are safe and effective for their labeled uses. (For an enforcement action involving colloidal silver, see page 36.)
The FDA final rule, which was published in the Aug. 17 Federal Register and became effective Sept. 16, requires that any colloidal silver product intended to be used as a drug will have to be approved by FDA under the agency's new drug application procedures before being marketed.
COPYRIGHT 1999 U.S. Government Printing Office
So sad that you think that the FDA has not banned this snake oil being sold as a treatment for any disease or ailment. More to the point are the disclaimers you will find on colloidal silver sites stating that it is not intended to treat and disease.
If all you can do is post one unsubstantiated tall tale after another, post personal insults about me, post more comments telling just how you think a large portion of the population are simply below you, or excuses as to why you cannot back up your claims, then you simply have no argument, just a collection of empty claims and CT rhetoric.
Odd how when you are proven to be wrong about one of your claims you either post another lame excuse or simply more onto another claim.
But again, all I have to do is to cite your own claim to show just how you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
http://www.corporations.org/aids/
http://www.corporations.org/aids/
The AID$ Industry
Much like the Cancer Industry, the AIDS industry has managed to make large profits at the expense of the people's health.
You can keep backpedaling and making all the excuses you would like, but you post exactly the same sentiment as any other FDA/Big Pharma conspiracy theorist.
So, tell me again how you do not support a CT. Or, you can just call me more names. Either way, you have not only failed to prove your claims, but the more you post, it becomes painfully obvious that what I have claimed about you is indeed fact.
You cannot even quote me properly from a post I made on the same page.
And again, that is not true. You have resorted to making comments about me being a factory working, something you seem to look down upon, or an uneducated youth rather than to back up your claims.
Care to explain why you accused me of being employed by big pharama when I challenged your claims or are you going to lie and claim you never did?
QUOTE
none of my statements support your assertion that I'm a "CTer".
And you can keep parroting that claim over and over, but I have shown just how you are a supporter of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theory.
Again, no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| none of my statements support your assertion that I'm a "CTer". |
And you can keep parroting that claim over and over, but I have shown just how you are a supporter of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theory.
Again, no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
The people/experiences I've mentioned are true, names withheld because real people have real feelings,
Right. So funny how that always seems to be the case when a conspiracy theorist mentions someone harmed but cannot produce a name.
QUOTE
and I doubt that the people I've identified as thieves would hesitate to sue me for defamation,
Again, standard cop-out from those who claim to have been persecuted or, as in your case, had their ideas “stolen” form them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and I doubt that the people I've identified as thieves would hesitate to sue me for defamation, |
Again, standard cop-out from those who claim to have been persecuted or, as in your case, had their ideas “stolen” form them.
and adults recognize that lawsuits, even when you're innocent, are too expensive to expose yourself to just to make a point to an idiot/troll like yourself.
And “adults” don’t have to resort to name calling, insults or trying to lessen others by claiming they are some form of laborer you look down upon.
The fact remains that you have made claims that are simply nonsensical, are backed by nothing but your claims and simply lack verisimilitude.
QUOTE
The PhD/MD from Stanford would also, likely, not appreciate my identifying him by name, as it was a painful experience for him, and a humiliating one, and one can only imagine how he feels every time he passes someone in a wheelchair, knowing that he could've cured them in a more-just world.
Yes, more embellishment of your tall tale. If you have no names to back that tall tale up, then that is all it is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The PhD/MD from Stanford would also, likely, not appreciate my identifying him by name, as it was a painful experience for him, and a humiliating one, and one can only imagine how he feels every time he passes someone in a wheelchair, knowing that he could've cured them in a more-just world. |
Yes, more embellishment of your tall tale. If you have no names to back that tall tale up, then that is all it is.
And I don't even know what you're talking about when you're saying that I claimed someone stole an idea of mine that I was under-contract to develop. (Certainly, you don't know what you're talking about either, but that's nothing new.)
You complained before that while you were a contractor that you ideas were stolen. And again, all you have are insults. Such and odd thing for one who claim to be speaking form fact to have to resort to.
QUOTE
Unless your limited reading comprehension misinterpreted my account of the time I was pursuing a consulting contract with a company I'd previously worked *with* (not *for*), and found a Patent Application on an invention of mine on the company president's desk, my drawing (off my own printer) pasted on the front page of the patent application, with my name as Inventor and the words "Proprietary Information" cropped off the drawing. The invention was disclosed to him under a "non-disclosure agreement" which clearly stated that the invention was *my* property, disclosed to his company under the legal agreement that he wouldn't disclose it to anyone else, nor that he would attempt to patent it as his own.
And the patent number would be? The company involved? Again, just another one of your tall tales with no facts to back it up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unless your limited reading comprehension misinterpreted my account of the time I was pursuing a consulting contract with a company I'd previously worked *with* (not *for*), and found a Patent Application on an invention of mine on the company president's desk, my drawing (off my own printer) pasted on the front page of the patent application, with my name as Inventor and the words "Proprietary Information" cropped off the drawing. The invention was disclosed to him under a "non-disclosure agreement" which clearly stated that the invention was *my* property, disclosed to his company under the legal agreement that he wouldn't disclose it to anyone else, nor that he would attempt to patent it as his own. |
And the patent number would be? The company involved? Again, just another one of your tall tales with no facts to back it up.
If you wish to verify how I got into ISPE, feel free to contact the President of ISPE, and tell him I said hello.
Why would I bother with an organization with such lax entrance requirements? I pointed out earlier just how they accept results from exams that are not monitored.
QUOTE
And brace yourself, he's more likely to call you worse names for questioning my status within ISPE than I ever have.
Strawman much? I never questioned your status in the organization. I commented on its lax entrance requirements.
If you are typical for a member of such a lax organization, then I would not be surprised. Again, it is odd just how a person claiming to be possessive of such a high IQ, and who evidently sees most of humanity as lesser beings, has to resort to name calling, child-like pouting feedback and is unable to back up their claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And brace yourself, he's more likely to call you worse names for questioning my status within ISPE than I ever have. |
Strawman much? I never questioned your status in the organization. I commented on its lax entrance requirements.
If you are typical for a member of such a lax organization, then I would not be surprised. Again, it is odd just how a person claiming to be possessive of such a high IQ, and who evidently sees most of humanity as lesser beings, has to resort to name calling, child-like pouting feedback and is unable to back up their claims.
Oh, and the silver wire you were discussing was for making an electromagnet for an implantable solenoid valve - the wire was silver because it has the highest conductivity (so has the least resistive losses) and insulated, and was the thickness of a human hair.
LOL. This is too funny. So I was right that the wire was silver? Care to comment about reading comprehension again? You don’t even remember what you yourself posted.
You see, you just mentioned wire. Since I know that you are a faith-based supported of the snake oil known as colloidal silver, and I know that the most common way it is produced is by the use of silver wire, I was the one to ask if the wire you mentioned was silver.
It is just too funny that I was right, but not quite as funny as your attempt at spin.
QUOTE
It's certainly more expensive than the Canadian Maple Leafs I have in case the FDA actually bans the sale of Colloidal Silver, as you mistakenly thought they had.
But the FDA has banned the sale of colloidal silver for the treatment of any disease or ailment.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m137..._33/ai_57800117
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's certainly more expensive than the Canadian Maple Leafs I have in case the FDA actually bans the sale of Colloidal Silver, as you mistakenly thought they had. |
But the FDA has banned the sale of colloidal silver for the treatment of any disease or ailment.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m137..._33/ai_57800117
Under a rule recently finalized by FDA, drug products containing colloidal silver or silver salts are not recognized as safe and effective. These products, labeled to treat a wide variety of illnesses in adults and children, including AIDS, cancer, syphilis, scarlet fever, shingles, herpes, and pneumonia, have caused some people's skin to take on a permanent blue-gray discoloration.
FDA concluded that colloidal silver products (suspensions of silver particles in a gelatinous base) are misbranded because adequate directions cannot be written to allow consumers to use them safely. These products are also misbranded, FDA said, when their labeling falsely suggests that there is substantial scientific evidence to establish that they are safe and effective for their labeled uses. (For an enforcement action involving colloidal silver, see page 36.)
The FDA final rule, which was published in the Aug. 17 Federal Register and became effective Sept. 16, requires that any colloidal silver product intended to be used as a drug will have to be approved by FDA under the agency's new drug application procedures before being marketed.
COPYRIGHT 1999 U.S. Government Printing Office
So sad that you think that the FDA has not banned this snake oil being sold as a treatment for any disease or ailment. More to the point are the disclaimers you will find on colloidal silver sites stating that it is not intended to treat and disease.
If all you can do is post one unsubstantiated tall tale after another, post personal insults about me, post more comments telling just how you think a large portion of the population are simply below you, or excuses as to why you cannot back up your claims, then you simply have no argument, just a collection of empty claims and CT rhetoric.
Odd how when you are proven to be wrong about one of your claims you either post another lame excuse or simply more onto another claim.
But again, all I have to do is to cite your own claim to show just how you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
QUOTE
My point isn't that doctors know of cures that they keep to themselves, but that pharmaceutical companies use their R&D budgets to pursue what's most likely to provide the greatest profit, and, for instance, someone diagnosed as being HIV+ has an average life expectancy of 23 years (last I heard), and the "cocktail" costs about $1000/month (last I heard). Doing the numbers, that means the pharmaceutical companies have an expectation of selling about $275,000-worth of medication to the average just-diagnosed HIV+ patient. If someone were to develop a one-shot cure for AIDS, how much could they charge for that one shot?
http://www.corporations.org/aids/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My point isn't that doctors know of cures that they keep to themselves, but that pharmaceutical companies use their R&D budgets to pursue what's most likely to provide the greatest profit, and, for instance, someone diagnosed as being HIV+ has an average life expectancy of 23 years (last I heard), and the "cocktail" costs about $1000/month (last I heard). Doing the numbers, that means the pharmaceutical companies have an expectation of selling about $275,000-worth of medication to the average just-diagnosed HIV+ patient. If someone were to develop a one-shot cure for AIDS, how much could they charge for that one shot? |
http://www.corporations.org/aids/
The AID$ Industry
Much like the Cancer Industry, the AIDS industry has managed to make large profits at the expense of the people's health.
You can keep backpedaling and making all the excuses you would like, but you post exactly the same sentiment as any other FDA/Big Pharma conspiracy theorist.
So, tell me again how you do not support a CT. Or, you can just call me more names. Either way, you have not only failed to prove your claims, but the more you post, it becomes painfully obvious that what I have claimed about you is indeed fact.
You cannot even quote me properly from a post I made on the same page.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
as GeneSplicer's "Official DCA Website" clearly indicates
QUOTE (GS+)
And just so no more such hucksters try to send you to any of the snake-oil or CT sitres, check into the official DCA Research information site
Do you normally play so fast and loose with the facts? And what was that comment about reading comprehension again?
And what does this have to do with anything? You are trying to compare a university research to a corporation? So why are there no Canadian corporations conducting this research or backing it? Points like these that you think are relevant just go to further illustrate your irrational method of thinking.
Do you normally play so fast and loose with the facts? And what was that comment about reading comprehension again?
QUOTE
It should also be noted that the DCA website looking for funds is a *Canadian university* website, not a US company.
And what does this have to do with anything? You are trying to compare a university research to a corporation? So why are there no Canadian corporations conducting this research or backing it? Points like these that you think are relevant just go to further illustrate your irrational method of thinking.
For a moment there, I actually enjoyed talking about physics.
Now, we're back to the mudslinging troll.
More reading comprehension problems. The date on a patent is the date that it was *applied for*, not the date it was issued. He applied for it one month after I turned-in the paper. I found out years later, when I started my own company.
Your "witchhunt logic" isn't worthy of this forum. I have silver wire, you can make CS with silver wire, therefore I'm making CS. Bullsh*t. I was making tiny magnetic coils for tiny solenoid valves under the second grant I received from NIH, doing a feasibility study for an idea I had. I proved its feasibility and wrote the final report/application for Phase II funding, and that 56pg. grant application, worth $700,000, if approved, was given to a visiting Chinese PhD to review. He couldn't read or write English beyond maybe the 3rd-grade level, and asked a lot of questions that were addressed in Plain English in the report as if they were unaddressed. They sent me a copy of his Review Comments the day after my responses to his comments were due. The decision to fund or not was being made the next day, so I scrambled together a response to all his garbled comments and at 4am my time, I started calling every number I knew at NIH looking for someone who'd take my fax and hand-carry it to the person who I was supposed to mail it to by the day before they mailed it to me. Found a sympathetic secretary who passed it to a colleague of the guy who was supposed to get it, and he hand-carried it to him before the meeting. The guy refused to accept it on the basis that it was received after the deadline for comments.
But I'm supposed to love this guy because he works for the government, right? Otherwise, that makes me a "CTer", because they are critical of the government, too. So to avoid your witchhunt logic, everyone must say nothing but nice things about everyone in the government, or they'll be Guilty of the crime of "using CTer rhetoric.
Contribute something of value to this thread or get off it.
Now, we're back to the mudslinging troll.
QUOTE
You have not made claim that are simply not supported by reality like your claim that a teacher who stole form you was able to get a patent in one month when on average it takes 20 to 24 months to get a patent?
More reading comprehension problems. The date on a patent is the date that it was *applied for*, not the date it was issued. He applied for it one month after I turned-in the paper. I found out years later, when I started my own company.
Your "witchhunt logic" isn't worthy of this forum. I have silver wire, you can make CS with silver wire, therefore I'm making CS. Bullsh*t. I was making tiny magnetic coils for tiny solenoid valves under the second grant I received from NIH, doing a feasibility study for an idea I had. I proved its feasibility and wrote the final report/application for Phase II funding, and that 56pg. grant application, worth $700,000, if approved, was given to a visiting Chinese PhD to review. He couldn't read or write English beyond maybe the 3rd-grade level, and asked a lot of questions that were addressed in Plain English in the report as if they were unaddressed. They sent me a copy of his Review Comments the day after my responses to his comments were due. The decision to fund or not was being made the next day, so I scrambled together a response to all his garbled comments and at 4am my time, I started calling every number I knew at NIH looking for someone who'd take my fax and hand-carry it to the person who I was supposed to mail it to by the day before they mailed it to me. Found a sympathetic secretary who passed it to a colleague of the guy who was supposed to get it, and he hand-carried it to him before the meeting. The guy refused to accept it on the basis that it was received after the deadline for comments.
But I'm supposed to love this guy because he works for the government, right? Otherwise, that makes me a "CTer", because they are critical of the government, too. So to avoid your witchhunt logic, everyone must say nothing but nice things about everyone in the government, or they'll be Guilty of the crime of "using CTer rhetoric.
Contribute something of value to this thread or get off it.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
For a moment there, I actually enjoyed talking about physics.
Not quite. You simply posted more of your CT claims regarding Big Pharama.
A troll, of the internet variety, posts topics to be disruptive or engages in similar tactics. I have yet to do so. I have and continue to challenge you unsubstantiated claims and your intellectually dishonest tactics in your attempt to support your claims regarding subjects such as colloidal silver, the FDA, pharmaceutical and related companies and medical research.
A troll, of the internet variety, posts topics to be disruptive or engages in similar tactics. I have yet to do so. I have and continue to challenge you unsubstantiated claims and your intellectually dishonest tactics in your attempt to support your claims regarding subjects such as colloidal silver, the FDA, pharmaceutical and related companies and medical research.
More reading comprehension problems. The date on a patent is the date that it was *applied for*, not the date it was issued. He applied for it one month after I turned-in the paper. I found out years later, when I started my own company.
You claim that the filing date is the date used when you look up a patent. Cite your proof. You may be right in your claim, but it falls upon you to back up your claim.
In other words, you cannot back up your claim and have to use more evasions.
In other words, you cannot back up your claim and have to use more evasions.
I have silver wire, you can make CS with silver wire, therefore I'm making CS. Bullsh*t.
You miss the subtle fact that you mentioned only wire at first. Only after I asked if it were silver, did you admit that.
You also ignore the rather odd behavior of how when you came to this forum to preach about the benefits of using colloidal silver, you felt it necessary to point out that you were not profiting from the sale of CS. Odd behavior for someone who was just here to relate their experience.
And more claims of the wrongs committed on you with nothing to back it up other than your word.
And this expansion of your tall tale means what in regards to addressing the claims that lack any credibility?
What does it have to do with your use of claims and terminology typical of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theorist?
And more claims of the wrongs committed on you with nothing to back it up other than your word.
And this expansion of your tall tale means what in regards to addressing the claims that lack any credibility?
What does it have to do with your use of claims and terminology typical of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theorist?
But I'm supposed to love this guy because he works for the government, right?
Another strawman. I never claimed you had to like or dislike anyone in the government. Your parroting of this strawman over and over is another dodge to the topics.
And another strawman. I never stated that being critical of the government is the mark of a conspiracy theorists.
What I stated was that no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
And another strawman. I never stated that being critical of the government is the mark of a conspiracy theorists.
What I stated was that no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
So to avoid your witchhunt logic, everyone must say nothing but nice things about everyone in the government, or they'll be Guilty of the crime of "using CTer rhetoric.
And again, another strawman. I never stated that a person cannot say anything negative about the government.
Odd how you keep complaining about reading comprehension yet you keep misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have posted.
So now you resort to child-like ultimatums? Sorry, but you do not own or control this forum.
As with others who have resorted to making this demand, if you want that sort of control, open your own forum and run it as you see fit.
But speaking of contributing, how about you finally address all of those issues you keep avoiding.
Explain just how you can post the same claims and the same rhetoric as a conspiracy supporter yet not be one?
Explain just why you think that the FDA has not banned the used of colloidal silver for the treatment of any disease or aliment.
Explain why you resorted to the typical CT rebuttal of claiming that I worked for a pharmaceutical company once I challenged your claims about CS.
There are many other items you keep avoiding, but those alone are sufficient for now.
If you manage to address these, we can move onto why you think that laborers, factory workers and students are so lowly as to be insulting to be called one or why you look down upon such people.
But, as with other conspiracy theorists, it is typical to call those who challenge your unsubstantiated claims with fact stupid, ignorant or somehow lesser than you.
Not quite. You simply posted more of your CT claims regarding Big Pharama.
QUOTE
Now, we're back to the mudslinging troll.
A troll, of the internet variety, posts topics to be disruptive or engages in similar tactics. I have yet to do so. I have and continue to challenge you unsubstantiated claims and your intellectually dishonest tactics in your attempt to support your claims regarding subjects such as colloidal silver, the FDA, pharmaceutical and related companies and medical research.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, we're back to the mudslinging troll. |
A troll, of the internet variety, posts topics to be disruptive or engages in similar tactics. I have yet to do so. I have and continue to challenge you unsubstantiated claims and your intellectually dishonest tactics in your attempt to support your claims regarding subjects such as colloidal silver, the FDA, pharmaceutical and related companies and medical research.
More reading comprehension problems. The date on a patent is the date that it was *applied for*, not the date it was issued. He applied for it one month after I turned-in the paper. I found out years later, when I started my own company.
You claim that the filing date is the date used when you look up a patent. Cite your proof. You may be right in your claim, but it falls upon you to back up your claim.
QUOTE
Your "witchhunt logic" isn't worthy of this forum.
In other words, you cannot back up your claim and have to use more evasions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your "witchhunt logic" isn't worthy of this forum. |
In other words, you cannot back up your claim and have to use more evasions.
I have silver wire, you can make CS with silver wire, therefore I'm making CS. Bullsh*t.
You miss the subtle fact that you mentioned only wire at first. Only after I asked if it were silver, did you admit that.
You also ignore the rather odd behavior of how when you came to this forum to preach about the benefits of using colloidal silver, you felt it necessary to point out that you were not profiting from the sale of CS. Odd behavior for someone who was just here to relate their experience.
QUOTE
I was making tiny magnetic coils for tiny solenoid valves under the second grant I received from NIH, doing a feasibility study for an idea I had. I proved its feasibility and wrote the final report/application for Phase II funding, and that 56pg. grant application, worth $700,000, if approved, was given to a visiting Chinese PhD to review. He couldn't read or write English beyond maybe the 3rd-grade level, and asked a lot of questions that were addressed in Plain English in the report as if they were unaddressed. They sent me a copy of his Review Comments the day after my responses to his comments were due. The decision to fund or not was being made the next day, so I scrambled together a response to all his garbled comments and at 4am my time, I started calling every number I knew at NIH looking for someone who'd take my fax and hand-carry it to the person who I was supposed to mail it to by the day before they mailed it to me. Found a sympathetic secretary who passed it to a colleague of the guy who was supposed to get it, and he hand-carried it to him before the meeting. The guy refused to accept it on the basis that it was received after the deadline for comments.
And more claims of the wrongs committed on you with nothing to back it up other than your word.
And this expansion of your tall tale means what in regards to addressing the claims that lack any credibility?
What does it have to do with your use of claims and terminology typical of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theorist?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was making tiny magnetic coils for tiny solenoid valves under the second grant I received from NIH, doing a feasibility study for an idea I had. I proved its feasibility and wrote the final report/application for Phase II funding, and that 56pg. grant application, worth $700,000, if approved, was given to a visiting Chinese PhD to review. He couldn't read or write English beyond maybe the 3rd-grade level, and asked a lot of questions that were addressed in Plain English in the report as if they were unaddressed. They sent me a copy of his Review Comments the day after my responses to his comments were due. The decision to fund or not was being made the next day, so I scrambled together a response to all his garbled comments and at 4am my time, I started calling every number I knew at NIH looking for someone who'd take my fax and hand-carry it to the person who I was supposed to mail it to by the day before they mailed it to me. Found a sympathetic secretary who passed it to a colleague of the guy who was supposed to get it, and he hand-carried it to him before the meeting. The guy refused to accept it on the basis that it was received after the deadline for comments. |
And more claims of the wrongs committed on you with nothing to back it up other than your word.
And this expansion of your tall tale means what in regards to addressing the claims that lack any credibility?
What does it have to do with your use of claims and terminology typical of the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma conspiracy theorist?
But I'm supposed to love this guy because he works for the government, right?
Another strawman. I never claimed you had to like or dislike anyone in the government. Your parroting of this strawman over and over is another dodge to the topics.
QUOTE
Otherwise, that makes me a "CTer", because they are critical of the government, too.
And another strawman. I never stated that being critical of the government is the mark of a conspiracy theorists.
What I stated was that no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Otherwise, that makes me a "CTer", because they are critical of the government, too. |
And another strawman. I never stated that being critical of the government is the mark of a conspiracy theorists.
What I stated was that no one who is seeking to critique the failings of the FDA, AMA or any other related organization or corporation uses terminology like suppressed, disinformation or stomp when discussing their actions unless you are a supporter of a conspiracy theory.
So to avoid your witchhunt logic, everyone must say nothing but nice things about everyone in the government, or they'll be Guilty of the crime of "using CTer rhetoric.
And again, another strawman. I never stated that a person cannot say anything negative about the government.
Odd how you keep complaining about reading comprehension yet you keep misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have posted.
QUOTE
Contribute something of value to this thread or get off it.
So now you resort to child-like ultimatums? Sorry, but you do not own or control this forum.
As with others who have resorted to making this demand, if you want that sort of control, open your own forum and run it as you see fit.
But speaking of contributing, how about you finally address all of those issues you keep avoiding.
Explain just how you can post the same claims and the same rhetoric as a conspiracy supporter yet not be one?
Explain just why you think that the FDA has not banned the used of colloidal silver for the treatment of any disease or aliment.
Explain why you resorted to the typical CT rebuttal of claiming that I worked for a pharmaceutical company once I challenged your claims about CS.
There are many other items you keep avoiding, but those alone are sufficient for now.
If you manage to address these, we can move onto why you think that laborers, factory workers and students are so lowly as to be insulting to be called one or why you look down upon such people.
But, as with other conspiracy theorists, it is typical to call those who challenge your unsubstantiated claims with fact stupid, ignorant or somehow lesser than you.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
The date on a patent is the date that it was *applied for*, not the date it was issued
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/g...dex.html#patent
And you are correct. But again your tall tale is just that without proff of your claims. No name of the professor who you claim stole the idea from you or the patent itself.
And yes, I know you have posted an excuse of not being able to sue, but again, if you did create whatever was patented and had such a paper trail and creative knowledge of the item that was patented, you could have easily found representation and proven your case.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/g...dex.html#patent
QUOTE
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.
And you are correct. But again your tall tale is just that without proff of your claims. No name of the professor who you claim stole the idea from you or the patent itself.
And yes, I know you have posted an excuse of not being able to sue, but again, if you did create whatever was patented and had such a paper trail and creative knowledge of the item that was patented, you could have easily found representation and proven your case.
I totally forgot to mention your own hypocrisy on one issue. I ran across this the other night after going through some of the older posts.
Link
Some of the negative feedback I think should be removable upon petition to PhysOrgForum, since a lot of it violates the rules against profanity or ad hominem attacks.
Very amusing considering your multiple negative left for me, the first one posted after you left a discussion thread unable to debate or back up your claims.
Any others personal standards or opinions you wish to state prior to violating them?
Do some research, and you'll find that my first 400 or 500 posts were on the 9/11 thread, COUNTERING the CTers' claims. You can ask Grumpy if you're too lazy to scan through the 9/11 posts.
The "Insurance Companies should fund Research into Cures" post was originated last year, and contains no "CT" rhetoric. In fact, I cited that there *WASN'T* any evidence of a conspiracy between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. That post was from November of *last year*, LONG BEFORE I started posting here on CS.
I felt it was worth sharing my personal experiences on CS as I'd first read about "nanosilver hydrosol and HIV-1" here on PhysOrg news, and first heard of CS here in the Forum section, where someone asked what the difference was between CS and nanosilver hydrosol. Looking into it, the difference seems to be that nanosilver hydrosol is what you call it when you don't want to get branded a crackpot by the FDA, as they've actually *approved* its use as a wide-spectrum antimicrobial agent for burn victims and impregnation of catheters.
As for your claim that the sale of CS has been "banned", I'm surprised to hear it, because it's still advertized for sale from various sources all over the internet, including the place where I get mine for about $75/gallon, delivered. What sellers *aren't allowed* to do is claim that it treats diseases.
Which the British Researchers proved in their US Army Clinical trials in Africa. Cures malaria is an average of 5.6 days with doses of 1/3rd oz per day of 10ppm CS. Plus other diseases, like gonorrhea, etc., also with sane doses.
I cited plenty of my own first-hand experiences, all successes, with CS, so I felt the ethical obligation to share my experiences with people who might otherwise be dying or suffering needlessly from diseases that the FDA has no approved/effective drug for. Like MRSA, which kills more Americans per year than AIDS. That's hardly spreading disinformation, that's quite the opposite. Posting links to pictures of Blue Idiots without mentioning that they've taken MASSIVE OVERDOSES that turned them blue and claiming "toxicity" issues (when the blue idiots seem to still be alive, despite taking the equivalent of nearly 2,000,000 doses) is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
As is your continuous deliberate misrepresentation of my position(s) and your manufactured misquotes of my supposed antisocial beliefs. I only cited my ISPE credentials (one in a thousand) after you accused me of being an imbecile, and you twisted that into an elitist claim. You chose the screenname of "GeneSplicer" to mislead people into thinking you're a white-lab-jacket scientist, which you're clearly NOT. (If you are, then you're the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, and I used to actually have the official business title of "Senior Staff Scientist" when I was working for SAIC on SDI in the mid-80s.)
It isn't that I look down on people who do manual labor, I used to do it myself while getting my BS/EE, it's just that people who don't have an education shouldn't misrepresent themselves as scientists. It's dishonest.
Your "witchhunt logic" asserting that there's a special set of words "that only CTers use" has got to be one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever heard. Only CTers use the word "stomped"!?! Or "disinformation"!?! I wasn't aware of that "fact". I have silver wire (bought in 1991) left over from making tiny electromagnets, and you can make CS from any silver source including silver wire, so that "proves" I make CS?
Ludicrous.
One reason I haven't just walked away from this post is that I'm actually entertained by how hard you're straining to pidgeon-hole me as a "CTer" when all evidence is to the contrary. I just love it when you put your witchhunt logic down in black and white for all here to read. I only hope everyone else is getting as much amusement as I am from your raving lunacy.
BTW, not everything is on the internet, especially things that happened over 15 years ago, so posting links to support everything in my personal past isn't possible. People still filled-out forms with typewriters back then. (I had one for specifically that purpose when I had my own company, as some of the Small Business Independent Research Grant paperwork required forms to be filled-out. )
Maybe that was before your time.
The NIH hasn't gone back to post webpages of R&D grants from the early 1990s so far as I know, otherwise I could forward you the link to the two grants I received from them, plus the "Summary Review" written by the Chinese PhD with the 3rd-grade English reading skills that killed my $700,000 Phase II SBIR Grant Application (which, historically, had an 80% likelihood of getting funded if you proved what you said you'd prove in Phase I, as I had).
Displaying your naive disregard of getting sued for defamation only proves to me that you aren't an adult yet, as most adults realize that if you defame someone in print, you can get sued, and even if you successfully defend yourself by proving what you said was true, you're still stuck with the legal bills, which could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You don't get that money back when you're the one being sued in a lawsuit, it's money down the drain. That's why I cite no names when discussing people who've stolen inventions of mine, and the cost of the lawyers is why I didn't sue at the time. Remember the OJ Murder Verdict? Unanimous aquittal. I thought the prosecution did a very good job of proving his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt, but his expensive legal team found the dumbest jurors on earth, apparently, and won the case. I couldn't afford justice, and they knew it and disregarded contracts and intellectual property laws knowing that all I could do is sue about it, and I couldn't afford to match them dollar-for-dollar in legal fees, so they took what they wanted and got off scott-free.
As for my "ulterior motives", they aren't secret, they're right below this post in the signature line. If one of my posts helps someone cure themself of MRSA (or malaria, or Job's Syndrome), then I get to share in the responsibility for saving their life.
If anyone doubts my commitment to these principles, feel free to visit my personal website where I discuss my ethical philosophy in greater depth. (You can even read about one of my experiences as Director of BioEngineering Research, where I was trying to design a better "electrolarynx" for people who've had their larynx removed, and my ultimate failure in that project, under "Subconscious Cues in the Human Voice".)
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
Link
QUOTE
I occasionally check my feedback out of curiosity, and find that whenever a member takes an idiotic stance against me and fails miserably in attacking my position, he resorts to posting a Negative unsubstantiated remark (and usually skulks-off muttering).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I occasionally check my feedback out of curiosity, and find that whenever a member takes an idiotic stance against me and fails miserably in attacking my position, he resorts to posting a Negative unsubstantiated remark (and usually skulks-off muttering). |
Some of the negative feedback I think should be removable upon petition to PhysOrgForum, since a lot of it violates the rules against profanity or ad hominem attacks.
Very amusing considering your multiple negative left for me, the first one posted after you left a discussion thread unable to debate or back up your claims.
Any others personal standards or opinions you wish to state prior to violating them?
QUOTE
You also ignore the rather odd behavior of how when you came to this forum to preach about the benefits of using colloidal silver, you felt it necessary to point out that you were not profiting from the sale of CS. Odd behavior for someone who was just here to relate their experience.
Do some research, and you'll find that my first 400 or 500 posts were on the 9/11 thread, COUNTERING the CTers' claims. You can ask Grumpy if you're too lazy to scan through the 9/11 posts.
The "Insurance Companies should fund Research into Cures" post was originated last year, and contains no "CT" rhetoric. In fact, I cited that there *WASN'T* any evidence of a conspiracy between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. That post was from November of *last year*, LONG BEFORE I started posting here on CS.
I felt it was worth sharing my personal experiences on CS as I'd first read about "nanosilver hydrosol and HIV-1" here on PhysOrg news, and first heard of CS here in the Forum section, where someone asked what the difference was between CS and nanosilver hydrosol. Looking into it, the difference seems to be that nanosilver hydrosol is what you call it when you don't want to get branded a crackpot by the FDA, as they've actually *approved* its use as a wide-spectrum antimicrobial agent for burn victims and impregnation of catheters.
As for your claim that the sale of CS has been "banned", I'm surprised to hear it, because it's still advertized for sale from various sources all over the internet, including the place where I get mine for about $75/gallon, delivered. What sellers *aren't allowed* to do is claim that it treats diseases.
Which the British Researchers proved in their US Army Clinical trials in Africa. Cures malaria is an average of 5.6 days with doses of 1/3rd oz per day of 10ppm CS. Plus other diseases, like gonorrhea, etc., also with sane doses.
I cited plenty of my own first-hand experiences, all successes, with CS, so I felt the ethical obligation to share my experiences with people who might otherwise be dying or suffering needlessly from diseases that the FDA has no approved/effective drug for. Like MRSA, which kills more Americans per year than AIDS. That's hardly spreading disinformation, that's quite the opposite. Posting links to pictures of Blue Idiots without mentioning that they've taken MASSIVE OVERDOSES that turned them blue and claiming "toxicity" issues (when the blue idiots seem to still be alive, despite taking the equivalent of nearly 2,000,000 doses) is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
As is your continuous deliberate misrepresentation of my position(s) and your manufactured misquotes of my supposed antisocial beliefs. I only cited my ISPE credentials (one in a thousand) after you accused me of being an imbecile, and you twisted that into an elitist claim. You chose the screenname of "GeneSplicer" to mislead people into thinking you're a white-lab-jacket scientist, which you're clearly NOT. (If you are, then you're the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, and I used to actually have the official business title of "Senior Staff Scientist" when I was working for SAIC on SDI in the mid-80s.)
It isn't that I look down on people who do manual labor, I used to do it myself while getting my BS/EE, it's just that people who don't have an education shouldn't misrepresent themselves as scientists. It's dishonest.
Your "witchhunt logic" asserting that there's a special set of words "that only CTers use" has got to be one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever heard. Only CTers use the word "stomped"!?! Or "disinformation"!?! I wasn't aware of that "fact". I have silver wire (bought in 1991) left over from making tiny electromagnets, and you can make CS from any silver source including silver wire, so that "proves" I make CS?
Ludicrous.
One reason I haven't just walked away from this post is that I'm actually entertained by how hard you're straining to pidgeon-hole me as a "CTer" when all evidence is to the contrary. I just love it when you put your witchhunt logic down in black and white for all here to read. I only hope everyone else is getting as much amusement as I am from your raving lunacy.
BTW, not everything is on the internet, especially things that happened over 15 years ago, so posting links to support everything in my personal past isn't possible. People still filled-out forms with typewriters back then. (I had one for specifically that purpose when I had my own company, as some of the Small Business Independent Research Grant paperwork required forms to be filled-out. )
Maybe that was before your time.
The NIH hasn't gone back to post webpages of R&D grants from the early 1990s so far as I know, otherwise I could forward you the link to the two grants I received from them, plus the "Summary Review" written by the Chinese PhD with the 3rd-grade English reading skills that killed my $700,000 Phase II SBIR Grant Application (which, historically, had an 80% likelihood of getting funded if you proved what you said you'd prove in Phase I, as I had).
Displaying your naive disregard of getting sued for defamation only proves to me that you aren't an adult yet, as most adults realize that if you defame someone in print, you can get sued, and even if you successfully defend yourself by proving what you said was true, you're still stuck with the legal bills, which could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You don't get that money back when you're the one being sued in a lawsuit, it's money down the drain. That's why I cite no names when discussing people who've stolen inventions of mine, and the cost of the lawyers is why I didn't sue at the time. Remember the OJ Murder Verdict? Unanimous aquittal. I thought the prosecution did a very good job of proving his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt, but his expensive legal team found the dumbest jurors on earth, apparently, and won the case. I couldn't afford justice, and they knew it and disregarded contracts and intellectual property laws knowing that all I could do is sue about it, and I couldn't afford to match them dollar-for-dollar in legal fees, so they took what they wanted and got off scott-free.
As for my "ulterior motives", they aren't secret, they're right below this post in the signature line. If one of my posts helps someone cure themself of MRSA (or malaria, or Job's Syndrome), then I get to share in the responsibility for saving their life.
If anyone doubts my commitment to these principles, feel free to visit my personal website where I discuss my ethical philosophy in greater depth. (You can even read about one of my experiences as Director of BioEngineering Research, where I was trying to design a better "electrolarynx" for people who've had their larynx removed, and my ultimate failure in that project, under "Subconscious Cues in the Human Voice".)
http://hometown.aol.com/aliyat/
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Do some research, and you'll find that my first 400 or 500 posts were on the 9/11 thread, COUNTERING the CTers' claims. You can ask Grumpy if you're too lazy to scan through the 9/11 posts.
And you still cannot understand that that is irrelevant. I have already pointed out how people can reject one or more conspiracy theories like 9/11 and the truthers claims yet still support fully another conspiracy theory or pseudoscience.
Grumpy was right as were the other in giving you positive feedback for taking on the truthers, but that again is irrelevant to this issue and your claim regarding the FDA, Big Pharma and the like.
And where did I state that it did? I stated that you want or think that the insurance companies would invest in research into treatments and cure ignoring their corporate structure while Pharmaceutical companies won’t.
But, I did find this in your post:
Link
And where did I state that it did? I stated that you want or think that the insurance companies would invest in research into treatments and cure ignoring their corporate structure while Pharmaceutical companies won’t.
But, I did find this in your post:
Link
Without sounding too paranoid about conspiracies to suppress CURES, it's actually more a matter of how pharmaceutical companies spend their R&D money - All for TREATMENTS, none for CURES.
No mention of conspiracy theories, but conspiracies. And then we have the same conspiracy theory claim as we have seen before from the same post:
If a pharmaceutical company finds a *CURE* for a disease, like AIDS, for which it can charge $1000/month to CURE an HIV+ patient with ONE DOSE, then they end up making a thousand dollars PER HIV+ patient, PERIOD.
So, walk like a duck and all.
Again, according you your misrepresentations. And again, your personal testimony is anecdotal and anyone even remotely familiar with how medical research is performed would know this.
Again, according you your misrepresentations. And again, your personal testimony is anecdotal and anyone even remotely familiar with how medical research is performed would know this.
As for your claim that the sale of CS has been "banned", I'm surprised to hear it, because it's still advertized for sale from various sources all over the internet, including the place where I get mine for about $75/gallon, delivered. What sellers *aren't allowed* to do is claim that it treats diseases.
And that is exactly what I stated and have stated over and over. You have complained several time about the lack of reading comprehension on the part of people you disagree with or who cite your own posts in this forum, yet you keep ignoring exactly how I have stated, posted and cited the actual FDA declaration that CS was banned to be sold as a treatment of any disease or malady. Do I need to go back and cite all those posts I made or are you going to claim you never saw them?
According to what source? Is this the same source you posted earlier that claimed success in treatment without performing the proper study methods? Was that the one form a pro-CS website?
According to what source? Is this the same source you posted earlier that claimed success in treatment without performing the proper study methods? Was that the one form a pro-CS website?
I cited plenty of my own first-hand experiences, all successes, with CS, so I felt the ethical obligation to share my experiences with people who might otherwise be dying or suffering needlessly from diseases that the FDA has no approved/effective drug for.
And again, your experiences are anecdotal . And as far as going to support websites for very seriously ill people and recommending that they try your colloidal silver snake oil, well that is just sad on so many levels.
Colloidal silver has never been proven to treat MRSA. Only by using your misrepresentation of legitimate research can you make that claim.
Colloidal silver has never been proven to treat MRSA. Only by using your misrepresentation of legitimate research can you make that claim.
That's hardly spreading disinformation, that's quite the opposite.
No, that is a prime example of spreading disinformation. What you claim about colloidal silver is not backed by any verifiable research.
You really are incapable of comprehending basic facts and rational thought. I have not mentioned those “blue idiots” as you call them who were victims of the CS snake oil salesmen but a few times. You seem to be hung up on those people, not I.
And, who said that the dose they took was toxic? I cited information form medical cites that declared that CS and silver salts are toxic and those sites go into more details about that recorded toxicity.
So, I suggest that if you have a problem with the established medical literature that you contact these websites and sources and explain to them just how the FDA is suppressing the cure-all colloidal silver.
You really are incapable of comprehending basic facts and rational thought. I have not mentioned those “blue idiots” as you call them who were victims of the CS snake oil salesmen but a few times. You seem to be hung up on those people, not I.
And, who said that the dose they took was toxic? I cited information form medical cites that declared that CS and silver salts are toxic and those sites go into more details about that recorded toxicity.
So, I suggest that if you have a problem with the established medical literature that you contact these websites and sources and explain to them just how the FDA is suppressing the cure-all colloidal silver.
As is your continuous deliberate misrepresentation of my position(s) and your manufactured misquotes of my supposed antisocial beliefs.
Really? So you have not posted insults about me being a factory worker or a similar profession you obviously look down upon?
How about we talk about your feedback you left for me shall we? You posted this negative feedback :
Now, if one were to try to claim that I simply do not understand what I was debating about, one could call me a know-nothing, but that is not the terminology you used.
You choose to call me a no-nothing, something with no value, substance, worth, etc.
Again, your claims are not reflected in what you post.
Now, if one were to try to claim that I simply do not understand what I was debating about, one could call me a know-nothing, but that is not the terminology you used.
You choose to call me a no-nothing, something with no value, substance, worth, etc.
Again, your claims are not reflected in what you post.
I only cited my ISPE credentials (one in a thousand) after you accused me of being an imbecile, and you twisted that into an elitist claim.
You keep making claims of what I have posted and when I challenge you to cite where I stated such, you fail to back up your accusations.
So again, cite where I called you an imbecile. Here, I will even make it real simple for you. Here is a search of Physorg for my user name, the term imbecile for any date in any forum.
Search Link
Please cite the posting where I called you an imbecile.
I can however cite where you used the term twice in this posting where I quoted you: Link
I wouldn't mind it that much if I had the opportunity to set the record straight in the Feedback section right there, so when some imbecile says I don't know anything about optics, I can post a link to my US Patent in high-energy laser optics (#7,310,360), or when someone calls me an idiot, I can post a link to the ISPE Members' Homepages (ISPE is like Mensa, except the entrance requirements are scoring in the top 0.1% on a standardized test, like the LSAT or GRE or SAT).
So tell me how you do not come off as elitist after calling others imbecile over and over.
Wow. Assume much? You know the old saying about what that means I’m sure.
So I really have to laugh when someone makes such a leap as you evidently have. More so after your bragging about your intellect.
And speaking again of reading comprehension, did you ever bother to read my signature? Ever notice the last link?
I suggest you follow it and practice a bit of your own advise and educate yourself before making claims that simply embarrass you in the end.
Here, let me make it really simple for you. Here is the link so you cannot say you didn’t or don’t see it: Click Here William Cater Elliot
Wow. Assume much? You know the old saying about what that means I’m sure.
So I really have to laugh when someone makes such a leap as you evidently have. More so after your bragging about your intellect.
And speaking again of reading comprehension, did you ever bother to read my signature? Ever notice the last link?
I suggest you follow it and practice a bit of your own advise and educate yourself before making claims that simply embarrass you in the end.
Here, let me make it really simple for you. Here is the link so you cannot say you didn’t or don’t see it: Click Here William Cater Elliot
(If you are, then you're the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, and I used to actually have the official business title of "Senior Staff Scientist" when I was working for SAIC on SDI in the mid-80s.)
And another personal insult and more hollow bragging. Claiming to work for SAIC is not that impressive for people familiar with SAIC and other companies like Wyle, Honeywell and the like.
Right and that’s why you felt it perfectly acceptable to seek to insult me by claiming I was a factory worker on more than one occasion.
And I am not responsible for whatever notions or conclusions you jump to based upon your ignorance, biases or similar limitation. For example, tell me where I claimed to be a scientist. Your misrepresentation of my forum name is your problem.
And what you claim here is at odd with the policies of the .1% ISPE you belong to. That organization accepts people based upon intellect and not educational status alone. Odd that you do not follow those principles, but it does lend itself to that elitist view you seem to posses.
Right and that’s why you felt it perfectly acceptable to seek to insult me by claiming I was a factory worker on more than one occasion.
And I am not responsible for whatever notions or conclusions you jump to based upon your ignorance, biases or similar limitation. For example, tell me where I claimed to be a scientist. Your misrepresentation of my forum name is your problem.
And what you claim here is at odd with the policies of the .1% ISPE you belong to. That organization accepts people based upon intellect and not educational status alone. Odd that you do not follow those principles, but it does lend itself to that elitist view you seem to posses.
Your "witchhunt logic" asserting that there's a special set of words "that only CTers use" has got to be one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever heard.
Please cite where I stated that only conspiracy theorist use certain terms.
And again, you misrepresent what I posted. Cite where I stated what you claim.
You should really not complain about the reading comprehension of other if you cannot follow a simple conversation yourself.
And again, you misrepresent what I posted. Cite where I stated what you claim.
You should really not complain about the reading comprehension of other if you cannot follow a simple conversation yourself.
I have silver wire (bought in 1991) left over from making tiny electromagnets, and you can make CS from any silver source including silver wire, so that "proves" I make CS?
I never stated proves. Again, try to follow along. You mentioned wire. I asked if that wire was silver, which it is. That, combined with your claims on this forum that you do not profit from the sale of CS after you sing it’s praises is a bit odd, but funny.
More like your ego will not let you walk away this time especially now that a search of your name will now lead to the discussions posted here.
And you spin again. It is really not that hard to cite your support of a conspiracy theory. All I have had to do is cite your own posts from here and on the net.
More like your ego will not let you walk away this time especially now that a search of your name will now lead to the discussions posted here.
And you spin again. It is really not that hard to cite your support of a conspiracy theory. All I have had to do is cite your own posts from here and on the net.
I just love it when you put your witchhunt logic down in black and white for all here to read.
And I will continue to post all of the logical fallacies, ad hominems, irrational and unsubstantiated claims that you post that lend credence to my claims.
And another personal insult. I’m sure you are getting a great deal of amusement if it were not for the fact that your actions again do not reflect your claims.
If you were just getting amusement from all of this, you would not resort to your emotionally driven actions. Actions like the ever-present personal insults. Actions like your need to leave not one, but two negatives for me. And your need to somehow express your idea that I personally am of no worth by calling me a no-nothing.
And another personal insult. I’m sure you are getting a great deal of amusement if it were not for the fact that your actions again do not reflect your claims.
If you were just getting amusement from all of this, you would not resort to your emotionally driven actions. Actions like the ever-present personal insults. Actions like your need to leave not one, but two negatives for me. And your need to somehow express your idea that I personally am of no worth by calling me a no-nothing.
BTW, not everything is on the internet, especially things that happened over 15 years ago, so posting links to support everything in my personal past isn't possible.
And that is another lie. You see, I use to work for SIAC as well and several other government contractors. One of the standard deliverables on such contracts is documentation, often to a ridiculous level.
Even projects that took place 15 years ago are referenced on the internet especially after they enter public disclosure.
Now if you worked on such projects years ago and they were not of a SBU, ITAR or security restricted nature, then your name would appear in relation to those projects.
If those projects were of a SBU, ITAR or security restriction that required your participation in the project to remain unknown, then you have violated that restriction, and your signed and sworn oath, by disclosing your participation in such projects.
Yes, and as I stated, many of those documents were digitized for quicker reference and easier and more reliable storage and redundancy.
Yes, and as I stated, many of those documents were digitized for quicker reference and easier and more reliable storage and redundancy.
Maybe that was before your time.
Ah, an age reference insult.
And since I am not familiar with the data infrastructure of the NIH, it is convenient for you to make such a claim.
Odd how you have had this long and highly technical career yet cannot provide much of a paper trail for it. Hell, you could just scan the grant applications or any document and post the image online
And since I am not familiar with the data infrastructure of the NIH, it is convenient for you to make such a claim.
Odd how you have had this long and highly technical career yet cannot provide much of a paper trail for it. Hell, you could just scan the grant applications or any document and post the image online
Displaying your naive disregard of getting sued for defamation only proves to me that you aren't an adult yet, as most adults realize that if you defame someone in print, you can get sued, and even if you successfully defend yourself by proving what you said was true, you're still stuck with the legal bills, which could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And another age reference insult. And again, if you have the paper trail of the creation of whatever it was that was patented and the creative knowledge behind it, you could sue and prove your claims. And wining such a suit would mean that you would be entitled to all related profits that were made from your “stolen” idea. Money would not be an issue since you have claimed that the person is question has it in abundance.
Yes, convenient, but again, very typical for many conspiracy theorist who have claimed to have been harmed by others.
Yes, convenient, but again, very typical for many conspiracy theorist who have claimed to have been harmed by others.
Remember the OJ Murder Verdict? Unanimous aquittal. I thought the prosecution did a very good job of proving his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt, but his expensive legal team found the dumbest jurors on earth, apparently, and won the case.
Wow. Could you misrepresent a legal patent lawsuit any more than you just did?
And again, there are plenty of lawyers who would work for such a case expecting to be paid if you win if you had a case and could support your claims to the point that they looked valid and not fabrications.
But in the end, all we have is your hollow claims.
And again, there are plenty of lawyers who would work for such a case expecting to be paid if you win if you had a case and could support your claims to the point that they looked valid and not fabrications.
But in the end, all we have is your hollow claims.
As for my "ulterior motives", they aren't secret, they're right below this post in the signature line. If one of my posts helps someone cure themself of MRSA (or malaria, or Job's Syndrome), then I get to share in the responsibility for saving their life.
Too funny. You really think that colloidal silver can treat MRSA, cure malaria or treat Job’s syndrome?
And speaking of Job’s syndrome, how sick and twisted do you have to be to post on their support forum suggesting that they try colloidal silver snake oil to treat such a terrible disease?
For those unfamiliar with the disease:Link
So tell me exactly how colloidal silver snake oil is supposed to treat this immunodeficiency disorder or any such similar disorder?
So tell me exactly how colloidal silver snake oil is supposed to treat this immunodeficiency disorder or any such similar disorder?
If anyone doubts my commitment to these principles, feel free to visit my personal website where I discuss my ethical philosophy in greater depth. (You can even read about one of my experiences as Director of BioEngineering Research, where I was trying to design a better "electrolarynx" for people who've had their larynx removed, and my ultimate failure in that project, under "Subconscious Cues in the Human Voice".)
I don’t doubt that you have claimed and continue to make a litany of very impressing claims of what you have done and how talented you are, but you seem to be unable to back any of these claims up. Worse yet, some seem to contradict.
You have claimed to have been involved in the aerospace industry for a few decades straight, yet you also claim to have worked in several different disciplines like biotechnology not related to the aerospace industry. In short, your stories don’t flow or jive.
So care to back up your claims about anything or do you tell me to leave the forum again?
More personal insults?
Care to cite exactly where I stated what you lcaim I stated?
Another repetitive negative that is hypocritical to what you claimed earlier about negative feedback?
And you still cannot understand that that is irrelevant. I have already pointed out how people can reject one or more conspiracy theories like 9/11 and the truthers claims yet still support fully another conspiracy theory or pseudoscience.
Grumpy was right as were the other in giving you positive feedback for taking on the truthers, but that again is irrelevant to this issue and your claim regarding the FDA, Big Pharma and the like.
QUOTE
The "Insurance Companies should fund Research into Cures" post was originated last year, and contains no "CT" rhetoric. In fact, I cited that there *WASN'T* any evidence of a conspiracy between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. That post was from November of *last year*, LONG AFTER I started posting here on CS.
And where did I state that it did? I stated that you want or think that the insurance companies would invest in research into treatments and cure ignoring their corporate structure while Pharmaceutical companies won’t.
But, I did find this in your post:
Link
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "Insurance Companies should fund Research into Cures" post was originated last year, and contains no "CT" rhetoric. In fact, I cited that there *WASN'T* any evidence of a conspiracy between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. That post was from November of *last year*, LONG AFTER I started posting here on CS. |
And where did I state that it did? I stated that you want or think that the insurance companies would invest in research into treatments and cure ignoring their corporate structure while Pharmaceutical companies won’t.
But, I did find this in your post:
Link
Without sounding too paranoid about conspiracies to suppress CURES, it's actually more a matter of how pharmaceutical companies spend their R&D money - All for TREATMENTS, none for CURES.
No mention of conspiracy theories, but conspiracies. And then we have the same conspiracy theory claim as we have seen before from the same post:
QUOTE
If a pharmaceutical company finds a *TREATMENT* for a disease, like AIDS, for which it can charge $1000/month to keep an HIV+ patient alive indefinitely, then they end up making a thousand dollars PER MONTH for every HIV+ patient from now, on.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If a pharmaceutical company finds a *TREATMENT* for a disease, like AIDS, for which it can charge $1000/month to keep an HIV+ patient alive indefinitely, then they end up making a thousand dollars PER MONTH for every HIV+ patient from now, on. |
If a pharmaceutical company finds a *CURE* for a disease, like AIDS, for which it can charge $1000/month to CURE an HIV+ patient with ONE DOSE, then they end up making a thousand dollars PER HIV+ patient, PERIOD.
So, walk like a duck and all.
QUOTE
I felt it was worth sharing my personal experiences on CS as I'd first read about "nanosilver hydrosol and HIV-1" here on PhysOrg news, and first heard of CS here in the Forum section, where someone asked what the difference was between CS and nanosilver hydrosol. Looking into it, the difference seems to be that nanosilver hydrosol is what you call it when you don't want to get branded a crackpot by the FDA, as they've actually *approved* its use as a wide-spectrum antimicrobial agent for burn victims and impregnation of catheters.
Again, according you your misrepresentations. And again, your personal testimony is anecdotal and anyone even remotely familiar with how medical research is performed would know this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I felt it was worth sharing my personal experiences on CS as I'd first read about "nanosilver hydrosol and HIV-1" here on PhysOrg news, and first heard of CS here in the Forum section, where someone asked what the difference was between CS and nanosilver hydrosol. Looking into it, the difference seems to be that nanosilver hydrosol is what you call it when you don't want to get branded a crackpot by the FDA, as they've actually *approved* its use as a wide-spectrum antimicrobial agent for burn victims and impregnation of catheters. |
Again, according you your misrepresentations. And again, your personal testimony is anecdotal and anyone even remotely familiar with how medical research is performed would know this.
As for your claim that the sale of CS has been "banned", I'm surprised to hear it, because it's still advertized for sale from various sources all over the internet, including the place where I get mine for about $75/gallon, delivered. What sellers *aren't allowed* to do is claim that it treats diseases.
And that is exactly what I stated and have stated over and over. You have complained several time about the lack of reading comprehension on the part of people you disagree with or who cite your own posts in this forum, yet you keep ignoring exactly how I have stated, posted and cited the actual FDA declaration that CS was banned to be sold as a treatment of any disease or malady. Do I need to go back and cite all those posts I made or are you going to claim you never saw them?
QUOTE
Which the British Researchers proved in their US Army Clinical trials in Africa. Cures malaria is an average of 5.6 days with doses of 1/3rd oz per day of 10ppm CS. Plus other diseases, like gonorrhea, etc., also with sane doses.
According to what source? Is this the same source you posted earlier that claimed success in treatment without performing the proper study methods? Was that the one form a pro-CS website?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which the British Researchers proved in their US Army Clinical trials in Africa. Cures malaria is an average of 5.6 days with doses of 1/3rd oz per day of 10ppm CS. Plus other diseases, like gonorrhea, etc., also with sane doses. |
According to what source? Is this the same source you posted earlier that claimed success in treatment without performing the proper study methods? Was that the one form a pro-CS website?
I cited plenty of my own first-hand experiences, all successes, with CS, so I felt the ethical obligation to share my experiences with people who might otherwise be dying or suffering needlessly from diseases that the FDA has no approved/effective drug for.
And again, your experiences are anecdotal . And as far as going to support websites for very seriously ill people and recommending that they try your colloidal silver snake oil, well that is just sad on so many levels.
QUOTE
Like MRSA, which kills more Americans per year than AIDS.
Colloidal silver has never been proven to treat MRSA. Only by using your misrepresentation of legitimate research can you make that claim.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like MRSA, which kills more Americans per year than AIDS. |
Colloidal silver has never been proven to treat MRSA. Only by using your misrepresentation of legitimate research can you make that claim.
That's hardly spreading disinformation, that's quite the opposite.
No, that is a prime example of spreading disinformation. What you claim about colloidal silver is not backed by any verifiable research.
QUOTE
Posting links to pictures of Blue Idiots without mentioning that they've taken MASSIVE OVERDOSES that turned them blue and claiming "toxicity" issues (when the blue idiots seem to still be alive, despite taking the equivalent of nearly 2,000,000 doses) is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
You really are incapable of comprehending basic facts and rational thought. I have not mentioned those “blue idiots” as you call them who were victims of the CS snake oil salesmen but a few times. You seem to be hung up on those people, not I.
And, who said that the dose they took was toxic? I cited information form medical cites that declared that CS and silver salts are toxic and those sites go into more details about that recorded toxicity.
So, I suggest that if you have a problem with the established medical literature that you contact these websites and sources and explain to them just how the FDA is suppressing the cure-all colloidal silver.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Posting links to pictures of Blue Idiots without mentioning that they've taken MASSIVE OVERDOSES that turned them blue and claiming "toxicity" issues (when the blue idiots seem to still be alive, despite taking the equivalent of nearly 2,000,000 doses) is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. |
You really are incapable of comprehending basic facts and rational thought. I have not mentioned those “blue idiots” as you call them who were victims of the CS snake oil salesmen but a few times. You seem to be hung up on those people, not I.
And, who said that the dose they took was toxic? I cited information form medical cites that declared that CS and silver salts are toxic and those sites go into more details about that recorded toxicity.
So, I suggest that if you have a problem with the established medical literature that you contact these websites and sources and explain to them just how the FDA is suppressing the cure-all colloidal silver.
As is your continuous deliberate misrepresentation of my position(s) and your manufactured misquotes of my supposed antisocial beliefs.
Really? So you have not posted insults about me being a factory worker or a similar profession you obviously look down upon?
How about we talk about your feedback you left for me shall we? You posted this negative feedback :
QUOTE
Contributes nothing of value to posts, relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation of others' statements, then calls them "liars" for contradicting his misrepresentations. So far, all I see is a no-nothing Troll posing as a "scientist".
Now, if one were to try to claim that I simply do not understand what I was debating about, one could call me a know-nothing, but that is not the terminology you used.
You choose to call me a no-nothing, something with no value, substance, worth, etc.
Again, your claims are not reflected in what you post.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Contributes nothing of value to posts, relies entirely on ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation of others' statements, then calls them "liars" for contradicting his misrepresentations. So far, all I see is a no-nothing Troll posing as a "scientist". |
Now, if one were to try to claim that I simply do not understand what I was debating about, one could call me a know-nothing, but that is not the terminology you used.
You choose to call me a no-nothing, something with no value, substance, worth, etc.
Again, your claims are not reflected in what you post.
I only cited my ISPE credentials (one in a thousand) after you accused me of being an imbecile, and you twisted that into an elitist claim.
You keep making claims of what I have posted and when I challenge you to cite where I stated such, you fail to back up your accusations.
So again, cite where I called you an imbecile. Here, I will even make it real simple for you. Here is a search of Physorg for my user name, the term imbecile for any date in any forum.
Search Link
Please cite the posting where I called you an imbecile.
I can however cite where you used the term twice in this posting where I quoted you: Link
QUOTE
I only supplied the ISPE link at your insistence, remember, but the link does at least substantiate that I'm not the imbecile you've taken me for.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I only supplied the ISPE link at your insistence, remember, but the link does at least substantiate that I'm not the imbecile you've taken me for. |
I wouldn't mind it that much if I had the opportunity to set the record straight in the Feedback section right there, so when some imbecile says I don't know anything about optics, I can post a link to my US Patent in high-energy laser optics (#7,310,360), or when someone calls me an idiot, I can post a link to the ISPE Members' Homepages (ISPE is like Mensa, except the entrance requirements are scoring in the top 0.1% on a standardized test, like the LSAT or GRE or SAT).
So tell me how you do not come off as elitist after calling others imbecile over and over.
QUOTE
You chose the screenname of "GeneSplicer" to mislead people into thinking you're a white-lab-jacket scientist, which you're clearly NOT.
Wow. Assume much? You know the old saying about what that means I’m sure.
So I really have to laugh when someone makes such a leap as you evidently have. More so after your bragging about your intellect.
And speaking again of reading comprehension, did you ever bother to read my signature? Ever notice the last link?
I suggest you follow it and practice a bit of your own advise and educate yourself before making claims that simply embarrass you in the end.
Here, let me make it really simple for you. Here is the link so you cannot say you didn’t or don’t see it: Click Here William Cater Elliot
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You chose the screenname of "GeneSplicer" to mislead people into thinking you're a white-lab-jacket scientist, which you're clearly NOT. |
Wow. Assume much? You know the old saying about what that means I’m sure.
So I really have to laugh when someone makes such a leap as you evidently have. More so after your bragging about your intellect.
And speaking again of reading comprehension, did you ever bother to read my signature? Ever notice the last link?
I suggest you follow it and practice a bit of your own advise and educate yourself before making claims that simply embarrass you in the end.
Here, let me make it really simple for you. Here is the link so you cannot say you didn’t or don’t see it: Click Here William Cater Elliot
(If you are, then you're the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, and I used to actually have the official business title of "Senior Staff Scientist" when I was working for SAIC on SDI in the mid-80s.)
And another personal insult and more hollow bragging. Claiming to work for SAIC is not that impressive for people familiar with SAIC and other companies like Wyle, Honeywell and the like.
QUOTE
It isn't that I look down on people who manual labor, I used to do it myself while getting my BS/EE, it's just that people who don't have an education shouldn't misrepresent themselves as scientists. It's dishonest.
Right and that’s why you felt it perfectly acceptable to seek to insult me by claiming I was a factory worker on more than one occasion.
And I am not responsible for whatever notions or conclusions you jump to based upon your ignorance, biases or similar limitation. For example, tell me where I claimed to be a scientist. Your misrepresentation of my forum name is your problem.
And what you claim here is at odd with the policies of the .1% ISPE you belong to. That organization accepts people based upon intellect and not educational status alone. Odd that you do not follow those principles, but it does lend itself to that elitist view you seem to posses.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It isn't that I look down on people who manual labor, I used to do it myself while getting my BS/EE, it's just that people who don't have an education shouldn't misrepresent themselves as scientists. It's dishonest. |
Right and that’s why you felt it perfectly acceptable to seek to insult me by claiming I was a factory worker on more than one occasion.
And I am not responsible for whatever notions or conclusions you jump to based upon your ignorance, biases or similar limitation. For example, tell me where I claimed to be a scientist. Your misrepresentation of my forum name is your problem.
And what you claim here is at odd with the policies of the .1% ISPE you belong to. That organization accepts people based upon intellect and not educational status alone. Odd that you do not follow those principles, but it does lend itself to that elitist view you seem to posses.
Your "witchhunt logic" asserting that there's a special set of words "that only CTers use" has got to be one of the most ludicrous positions I've ever heard.
Please cite where I stated that only conspiracy theorist use certain terms.
QUOTE
Only CTers use the word "stomped"!?! Or "disinformation"!?! I wasn't aware of that "fact".
And again, you misrepresent what I posted. Cite where I stated what you claim.
You should really not complain about the reading comprehension of other if you cannot follow a simple conversation yourself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only CTers use the word "stomped"!?! Or "disinformation"!?! I wasn't aware of that "fact". |
And again, you misrepresent what I posted. Cite where I stated what you claim.
You should really not complain about the reading comprehension of other if you cannot follow a simple conversation yourself.
I have silver wire (bought in 1991) left over from making tiny electromagnets, and you can make CS from any silver source including silver wire, so that "proves" I make CS?
I never stated proves. Again, try to follow along. You mentioned wire. I asked if that wire was silver, which it is. That, combined with your claims on this forum that you do not profit from the sale of CS after you sing it’s praises is a bit odd, but funny.
QUOTE
One reason I haven't just walked away from this post is that I'm actually entertained by how hard you're straining to pidgeon-hole me as a "CTer" when all evidence is to the contrary.
More like your ego will not let you walk away this time especially now that a search of your name will now lead to the discussions posted here.
And you spin again. It is really not that hard to cite your support of a conspiracy theory. All I have had to do is cite your own posts from here and on the net.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One reason I haven't just walked away from this post is that I'm actually entertained by how hard you're straining to pidgeon-hole me as a "CTer" when all evidence is to the contrary. |
More like your ego will not let you walk away this time especially now that a search of your name will now lead to the discussions posted here.
And you spin again. It is really not that hard to cite your support of a conspiracy theory. All I have had to do is cite your own posts from here and on the net.
I just love it when you put your witchhunt logic down in black and white for all here to read.
And I will continue to post all of the logical fallacies, ad hominems, irrational and unsubstantiated claims that you post that lend credence to my claims.
QUOTE
I only hope everyone else is getting as much amusement as I am from your raving lunacy.
And another personal insult. I’m sure you are getting a great deal of amusement if it were not for the fact that your actions again do not reflect your claims.
If you were just getting amusement from all of this, you would not resort to your emotionally driven actions. Actions like the ever-present personal insults. Actions like your need to leave not one, but two negatives for me. And your need to somehow express your idea that I personally am of no worth by calling me a no-nothing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I only hope everyone else is getting as much amusement as I am from your raving lunacy. |
And another personal insult. I’m sure you are getting a great deal of amusement if it were not for the fact that your actions again do not reflect your claims.
If you were just getting amusement from all of this, you would not resort to your emotionally driven actions. Actions like the ever-present personal insults. Actions like your need to leave not one, but two negatives for me. And your need to somehow express your idea that I personally am of no worth by calling me a no-nothing.
BTW, not everything is on the internet, especially things that happened over 15 years ago, so posting links to support everything in my personal past isn't possible.
And that is another lie. You see, I use to work for SIAC as well and several other government contractors. One of the standard deliverables on such contracts is documentation, often to a ridiculous level.
Even projects that took place 15 years ago are referenced on the internet especially after they enter public disclosure.
Now if you worked on such projects years ago and they were not of a SBU, ITAR or security restricted nature, then your name would appear in relation to those projects.
If those projects were of a SBU, ITAR or security restriction that required your participation in the project to remain unknown, then you have violated that restriction, and your signed and sworn oath, by disclosing your participation in such projects.
QUOTE
People still filled-out forms with typewriters back then. (I had one for specifically that purpose when I had my own company, as some of the Small Business Independent Research Grant paperwork required forms to be filled-out. )
Yes, and as I stated, many of those documents were digitized for quicker reference and easier and more reliable storage and redundancy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| People still filled-out forms with typewriters back then. (I had one for specifically that purpose when I had my own company, as some of the Small Business Independent Research Grant paperwork required forms to be filled-out. ) |
Yes, and as I stated, many of those documents were digitized for quicker reference and easier and more reliable storage and redundancy.
Maybe that was before your time.
Ah, an age reference insult.
QUOTE
The NIH hasn't gone back to post webpages of R&D grants from the early 1990s so far as I know, otherwise I could forward you the link to the two grants I received from them, plus the "Summary Review" written by the Chinese PhD with the 3rd-grade English reading skills that killed my $700,000 Phase II SBIR Grant Application (which, historically, had an 80% likelihood of getting funded if you proved what you said you'd prove in Phase I, as I had).
And since I am not familiar with the data infrastructure of the NIH, it is convenient for you to make such a claim.
Odd how you have had this long and highly technical career yet cannot provide much of a paper trail for it. Hell, you could just scan the grant applications or any document and post the image online
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The NIH hasn't gone back to post webpages of R&D grants from the early 1990s so far as I know, otherwise I could forward you the link to the two grants I received from them, plus the "Summary Review" written by the Chinese PhD with the 3rd-grade English reading skills that killed my $700,000 Phase II SBIR Grant Application (which, historically, had an 80% likelihood of getting funded if you proved what you said you'd prove in Phase I, as I had). |
And since I am not familiar with the data infrastructure of the NIH, it is convenient for you to make such a claim.
Odd how you have had this long and highly technical career yet cannot provide much of a paper trail for it. Hell, you could just scan the grant applications or any document and post the image online
Displaying your naive disregard of getting sued for defamation only proves to me that you aren't an adult yet, as most adults realize that if you defame someone in print, you can get sued, and even if you successfully defend yourself by proving what you said was true, you're still stuck with the legal bills, which could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And another age reference insult. And again, if you have the paper trail of the creation of whatever it was that was patented and the creative knowledge behind it, you could sue and prove your claims. And wining such a suit would mean that you would be entitled to all related profits that were made from your “stolen” idea. Money would not be an issue since you have claimed that the person is question has it in abundance.
QUOTE
You don't get that money back when you're the one being sued in a lawsuit, it's money down the drain. That's why I cite no names when discussing people who've stolen inventions of mine, and the cost of the lawyers is why I didn't sue at the time.
Yes, convenient, but again, very typical for many conspiracy theorist who have claimed to have been harmed by others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't get that money back when you're the one being sued in a lawsuit, it's money down the drain. That's why I cite no names when discussing people who've stolen inventions of mine, and the cost of the lawyers is why I didn't sue at the time. |
Yes, convenient, but again, very typical for many conspiracy theorist who have claimed to have been harmed by others.
Remember the OJ Murder Verdict? Unanimous aquittal. I thought the prosecution did a very good job of proving his guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt, but his expensive legal team found the dumbest jurors on earth, apparently, and won the case.
Wow. Could you misrepresent a legal patent lawsuit any more than you just did?
QUOTE
I couldn't afford justice, and they knew it and disregarded contracts and intellectual property laws knowing that all I could do is sue about it, and I couldn't afford to match them dollar-for-dollar in legal fees, so they took what they wanted and got off scott-free.
And again, there are plenty of lawyers who would work for such a case expecting to be paid if you win if you had a case and could support your claims to the point that they looked valid and not fabrications.
But in the end, all we have is your hollow claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I couldn't afford justice, and they knew it and disregarded contracts and intellectual property laws knowing that all I could do is sue about it, and I couldn't afford to match them dollar-for-dollar in legal fees, so they took what they wanted and got off scott-free. |
And again, there are plenty of lawyers who would work for such a case expecting to be paid if you win if you had a case and could support your claims to the point that they looked valid and not fabrications.
But in the end, all we have is your hollow claims.
As for my "ulterior motives", they aren't secret, they're right below this post in the signature line. If one of my posts helps someone cure themself of MRSA (or malaria, or Job's Syndrome), then I get to share in the responsibility for saving their life.
Too funny. You really think that colloidal silver can treat MRSA, cure malaria or treat Job’s syndrome?
And speaking of Job’s syndrome, how sick and twisted do you have to be to post on their support forum suggesting that they try colloidal silver snake oil to treat such a terrible disease?
For those unfamiliar with the disease:Link
QUOTE
First described in 1966, the hyperimmunoglobulin E (hyper-IgE or HIE) syndrome is a rare immunodeficiency disorder that has an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. HIE has variable expressivity and is associated with multiple abnormalities. The most common findings are recurrent skin abscesses (hence, the name Job syndrome), pneumonia with pneumatocele development, and high serum levels of IgE. Facial, dental, and skeletal features are also associated with this syndrome.
So tell me exactly how colloidal silver snake oil is supposed to treat this immunodeficiency disorder or any such similar disorder?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First described in 1966, the hyperimmunoglobulin E (hyper-IgE or HIE) syndrome is a rare immunodeficiency disorder that has an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. HIE has variable expressivity and is associated with multiple abnormalities. The most common findings are recurrent skin abscesses (hence, the name Job syndrome), pneumonia with pneumatocele development, and high serum levels of IgE. Facial, dental, and skeletal features are also associated with this syndrome. |
So tell me exactly how colloidal silver snake oil is supposed to treat this immunodeficiency disorder or any such similar disorder?
If anyone doubts my commitment to these principles, feel free to visit my personal website where I discuss my ethical philosophy in greater depth. (You can even read about one of my experiences as Director of BioEngineering Research, where I was trying to design a better "electrolarynx" for people who've had their larynx removed, and my ultimate failure in that project, under "Subconscious Cues in the Human Voice".)
I don’t doubt that you have claimed and continue to make a litany of very impressing claims of what you have done and how talented you are, but you seem to be unable to back any of these claims up. Worse yet, some seem to contradict.
You have claimed to have been involved in the aerospace industry for a few decades straight, yet you also claim to have worked in several different disciplines like biotechnology not related to the aerospace industry. In short, your stories don’t flow or jive.
So care to back up your claims about anything or do you tell me to leave the forum again?
More personal insults?
Care to cite exactly where I stated what you lcaim I stated?
Another repetitive negative that is hypocritical to what you claimed earlier about negative feedback?
The name of your website is:
Are you stating that you are one of those who never evolved, or are you making an elitist claim that you've evolved more than those you disagree with?
You picked the screen name of "GeneSplicer". Splicing genes is something scientists do. And you assert that I'm at-fault for misinterpreting your screen name. Are you a scientist or not?
Thanks for pointing-out my error, when I get tired, I tend to write phonetically. I meant to call you a "know-nothing poser", not a "no-nothing poser."
I'll correct the mistake next time I provide you with feedback.
My points weren't intended to insult your age, they were meant to point out how adults usually understand things that naive students/teenagers don't get, like why a person doesn't sue a millionaire when he's having to borrow money to pay the rent when business is slow/nonexistent. As it was for many of us who worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative when the Soviet Union started showing signs of its imminent collapse. For a few years, I worked two jobs, one as a defense consultant, the other, starting my own bioengineering company.
Then defense contracting collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union and many, many PhDs flooded the engineering market. A lot of them ended up flipping hamburgers. I was developing my own bioengineering concepts by then, as I'd stated before. (Remember me using the phrase, "beating swords into plowshares"?) After about five years of dealing with some of the sleaziest people I've ever met, corporate-types stealing my ideas like that was simply "smart business," and after the NIH assigned my grant application to someone who read and wrote at a 3rd grade level to review, I went back to aerospace/defense work, where most of the engineers are trustworthy and honest, which was quite refreshing after my litany of bad experiences in the biomedical industry.
Maybe you aren't a teenager, but there are a lot of instances where you sound like one. Perhaps you're older than I am, and are losing your memory, but I posted a link to an FDA-approved product for burn victims which consisted of silver-coated plastic film which stated unequivocally that "ionic silver kills MRSA" and that it was known to be a wide-spectrum microbicide, and another link to another FDA-approved product that incorporates silver nanoparticles into Foley catheters to suppress infections normally-associated with catheterization. Plus the link to the UTexas research that studied "nanosilver hydrosol" and its effect on the AIDS virus. And I think you've forgotten that pharmaceutical companies actually continued to make colloidal silver under FDA approval until 1975.
Maybe that sounds like an eternity ago to you, like something from the dark ages, but I was a senior in engineering school in 1975. The FDA existed and approved its sale and use long after the discovery of penicillin. They've only recently declared war on it. There were very few antibiotic-resistant bacteria back in 1975, and the way they used to make CS was by milling it into a powder (particle sizes much larger than the 1-10 nanometers that the UTexas study showed sticking to the exposed enzymes HIV-1 uses to penetrate cell membranes as the first step in infection), so they used massive doses to compensate. My grandmother had a ruptured appendix before penicillin, and was treated with sulfanilomide and colloidal silver to suppress the infection, and lived another 7 years afterward, although her skin had a slight blueish tinge to it due to the massive dose of CS they gave her.
Still, without the CS and sulfa drugs, she'd have died in a matter of days following the ruptured appendix. These days, it's known that particle size matters, and you can get good results with tiny total quantities of silver (10 parts-per-million, a teaspoon per day, cures malaria in 5.6 days, according to the research study performed in Africa by British scientists working with US Army doctors.) That was the study you referred-to as "unscientific" because it had no controls. Controls in that clinical study, for malaria, would've resulted in deaths, and you can't require a medical doctor to allow a patient to go untreated when he'll die as a consequence just to satisfy your "standards" of scientific research.
Which brings us back to the same question - Are you the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, or are you a poser who wants people to *think* he's a scientist?
QUOTE
THE SHALLOW GENE POOL
Some of us never evolved
Some of us never evolved
Are you stating that you are one of those who never evolved, or are you making an elitist claim that you've evolved more than those you disagree with?
You picked the screen name of "GeneSplicer". Splicing genes is something scientists do. And you assert that I'm at-fault for misinterpreting your screen name. Are you a scientist or not?
Thanks for pointing-out my error, when I get tired, I tend to write phonetically. I meant to call you a "know-nothing poser", not a "no-nothing poser."
I'll correct the mistake next time I provide you with feedback.
My points weren't intended to insult your age, they were meant to point out how adults usually understand things that naive students/teenagers don't get, like why a person doesn't sue a millionaire when he's having to borrow money to pay the rent when business is slow/nonexistent. As it was for many of us who worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative when the Soviet Union started showing signs of its imminent collapse. For a few years, I worked two jobs, one as a defense consultant, the other, starting my own bioengineering company.
Then defense contracting collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union and many, many PhDs flooded the engineering market. A lot of them ended up flipping hamburgers. I was developing my own bioengineering concepts by then, as I'd stated before. (Remember me using the phrase, "beating swords into plowshares"?) After about five years of dealing with some of the sleaziest people I've ever met, corporate-types stealing my ideas like that was simply "smart business," and after the NIH assigned my grant application to someone who read and wrote at a 3rd grade level to review, I went back to aerospace/defense work, where most of the engineers are trustworthy and honest, which was quite refreshing after my litany of bad experiences in the biomedical industry.
Maybe you aren't a teenager, but there are a lot of instances where you sound like one. Perhaps you're older than I am, and are losing your memory, but I posted a link to an FDA-approved product for burn victims which consisted of silver-coated plastic film which stated unequivocally that "ionic silver kills MRSA" and that it was known to be a wide-spectrum microbicide, and another link to another FDA-approved product that incorporates silver nanoparticles into Foley catheters to suppress infections normally-associated with catheterization. Plus the link to the UTexas research that studied "nanosilver hydrosol" and its effect on the AIDS virus. And I think you've forgotten that pharmaceutical companies actually continued to make colloidal silver under FDA approval until 1975.
Maybe that sounds like an eternity ago to you, like something from the dark ages, but I was a senior in engineering school in 1975. The FDA existed and approved its sale and use long after the discovery of penicillin. They've only recently declared war on it. There were very few antibiotic-resistant bacteria back in 1975, and the way they used to make CS was by milling it into a powder (particle sizes much larger than the 1-10 nanometers that the UTexas study showed sticking to the exposed enzymes HIV-1 uses to penetrate cell membranes as the first step in infection), so they used massive doses to compensate. My grandmother had a ruptured appendix before penicillin, and was treated with sulfanilomide and colloidal silver to suppress the infection, and lived another 7 years afterward, although her skin had a slight blueish tinge to it due to the massive dose of CS they gave her.
Still, without the CS and sulfa drugs, she'd have died in a matter of days following the ruptured appendix. These days, it's known that particle size matters, and you can get good results with tiny total quantities of silver (10 parts-per-million, a teaspoon per day, cures malaria in 5.6 days, according to the research study performed in Africa by British scientists working with US Army doctors.) That was the study you referred-to as "unscientific" because it had no controls. Controls in that clinical study, for malaria, would've resulted in deaths, and you can't require a medical doctor to allow a patient to go untreated when he'll die as a consequence just to satisfy your "standards" of scientific research.
Which brings us back to the same question - Are you the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, or are you a poser who wants people to *think* he's a scientist?
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Are you stating that you are one of those who never evolved, or are you making an elitist claim that you've evolved more than those you disagree with?
You are truly amazing, and not in a fashion that might swell your ego more.
Out of that entire post, you are still hung up on my forum name? How myopic and juvenile can you get?
And playing games with the title, topic and purpose of my site and podcast in order to insult me more? Can you pick a different tactic or is that all you are capable of?
The site was created for the podcast and the podcast is self explanatory.
yes, and so? I picked the name that I use and had already established on my podcast based on my name and the name and purpose of the show.
yes, and so? I picked the name that I use and had already established on my podcast based on my name and the name and purpose of the show.
Splicing genes is something scientists do. And you assert that I'm at-fault for misinterpreting your screen name.
Yes, because you jumped to the conclusion based solely on my screen name here and totally ignoring or were unable to read my signature and follow the links.
Odd how you have talked about doing research yet you cannot follow posted links.
Let me guess. If I say no, then you see no further reason to debate? Or do I get some comment about how I am unqualified to debate you like I believe you claimed when others disagreed with you.
I have already mentioned in several posts so far that I am a layman. In your rush to post personal insults and complain about the reading comprehension of others, did you fail you read and comprehend that when I posted it?
Let me guess. If I say no, then you see no further reason to debate? Or do I get some comment about how I am unqualified to debate you like I believe you claimed when others disagreed with you.
I have already mentioned in several posts so far that I am a layman. In your rush to post personal insults and complain about the reading comprehension of others, did you fail you read and comprehend that when I posted it?
Thanks for pointing-out my error, when I get tired, I tend to write phonetically. I meant to call you a "know-nothing poser", not a "no-nothing poser."
Wow. Another excuse that does not stand up to scrutiny. So you must have been “tired” when you posted that comment twice. Again, how convenient.
Oh joy. A threat. You mean you are now stalking me and going to post more negative feedback? Wow. Your ego does rule you.
So tell me again how you have such problems with people abusing the feedback feature. So you cannot practice what you preach.
Oh joy. A threat. You mean you are now stalking me and going to post more negative feedback? Wow. Your ego does rule you.
So tell me again how you have such problems with people abusing the feedback feature. So you cannot practice what you preach.
My points weren't intended to insult your age, they were meant to point out how adults usually understand things that naive students/teenagers don't get, like why a person doesn't sue a millionaire when he's having to borrow money to pay the rent when business is slow/nonexistent.
And again, what you claim is not supported by what you post. So you did not mean to insult me by calling me young on more than one occasion yet continue to do just that here again.
Again, you can keep claiming you invented a litany of items that were stolen by one person after another, but without proof, they are still just a series of tall tales. Your excuses do not change that.
And that was when you could barely pay the rent for your bioengineer company? Contractors working on SDI or similar project of the time, especially one with a high ranking station as you claim to have possessed, were far from hurting monetarily.
And that was when you could barely pay the rent for your bioengineer company? Contractors working on SDI or similar project of the time, especially one with a high ranking station as you claim to have possessed, were far from hurting monetarily.
Maybe you aren't a teenager, but there are a lot of instances where you sound like one.
Then perhaps you should again follow your own advise and perform a bit of research. Listening to a few of my podcasts would have clear that fallacy right up.
And again, odd how someone who “sounds like” a teenager has been able to illustrate just how your claims about CS are not backed by facts.
It is typical for a person with no argument or ability to back up their claims to resort to making comments about the poster as you have done with me. Again, such comments like your accusation that I worked for a pharmaceutical company, was a factory worker or just a teenager.
And another odd thing is how you, a person who is a member of such an organization as the ISPE, has such poor diction yet you claim that I “sound like” a teenager.
And again, more personal insults. So I go from being a no-nothing teenager to a adult whose mind has become infirmed with age or malady.
And again, more personal insults. So I go from being a no-nothing teenager to a adult whose mind has become infirmed with age or malady.
but I posted a link to an FDA-approved product for burn victims which consisted of silver-coated plastic film which stated unequivocally that "ionic silver kills MRSA" and that it was known to be a wide-spectrum microbicide,
And again, you misrepresent legitimate research and products. The nanocrystal silver bandages that are used are used to block the transmission of MRSA, not to cure it as you tried to originally spin the claim to state. It was not used to treat or cure a person who had MRSA.
And again, you misrepresent legitimate products. A catheter that incorporates silver to prevent the growth of organisms on that catheter does not support the use of colloidal silver as you fallaciously tried to spin over and over. Such impregnation would not treat a person who had a tract infection, so again your claims are simply not true.
And again, you misrepresent legitimate products. A catheter that incorporates silver to prevent the growth of organisms on that catheter does not support the use of colloidal silver as you fallaciously tried to spin over and over. Such impregnation would not treat a person who had a tract infection, so again your claims are simply not true.
Plus the link to the UTexas research that studied "nanosilver hydrosol" and its effect on the AIDS virus.
What link? You forgot to post it. If you mean the research of using silver nanoparticles in vitro, then again, you misrepresent that research. Something affecting HIV in a petri dish is not the same as being able to cure HIV in a living human body. You have so far claimed that promising research was indeed cures for diseases like HIV and cancer.
Cite your source for that claim please. You may be right, but you play so fast and loose with facts that what you claim cannot be trusted on face value in such matters.
Cite your source for that claim please. You may be right, but you play so fast and loose with facts that what you claim cannot be trusted on face value in such matters.
Maybe that sounds like an eternity ago to you, like something from the dark ages, but I was a senior in engineering school in 1975. The FDA existed and approved its sale and use long after the discovery of penicillin. They've only recently declared war on it.
You mean by banning it like you stated they had not? And again, such terminology as “war on it”. Banning a useless substance is not committing war on it, suppressing it or engaging in misinformation as you keep claiming.
And again, your source for that claim? You have again failed to post it.
And again, your source for that claim? You have again failed to post it.
That was the study you referred-to as "unscientific" because it had no controls.
Yes, and again, it was. And again, a person so familiar with the biotech industry as you claim would know that to be true.
But let us ignore those facts for a moment and run with the notion that giving everyone who is ill CS is a valid test. If CS was so effective, then why has there been no continuing research that builds upon that initial success? Normally, research and clinical trials, properly done, that show promising results leads to further testing.
You still cannot honestly represent what I posted. How sad is it that you have to continue to distort or outright lie about what I have claimed?
You also claimed that modern malaria drugs were ineffective. That is yet another claim you did not back up with anything but your claim.
And again, they are not my standards as you keep falsely claiming. You would think that a person who claims to be so involved in the biomedical industry would be familiar with proper study methods and testing methods.
You still cannot honestly represent what I posted. How sad is it that you have to continue to distort or outright lie about what I have claimed?
You also claimed that modern malaria drugs were ineffective. That is yet another claim you did not back up with anything but your claim.
And again, they are not my standards as you keep falsely claiming. You would think that a person who claims to be so involved in the biomedical industry would be familiar with proper study methods and testing methods.
Which brings us back to the same question - Are you the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, or are you a poser who wants people to *think* he's a scientist?
No, that brings you back to more personal insults and erroneous claims about what I have posted. Please cite where I claimed to be a scientist. Your jumping to conclusions isn’t valid.
You keep making such odd and fanciful claims and are unable to back them up with research or facts from legitimate sources.
Legitimate sources you castigate and make such irrational claims that they are suppressing or have declared war on colloidal silver and still think you are being rational.
And after someone challenges your unsubstantial claims, you launch into a litany of personal insults rather than backing up your claims with facts.
Then there are all the times that you just recently claimed that I stated one thing or another yet you still cannot cite exactly where I stated what you claim. How about your recent claim that I called you an imbecile? Odd how that turned out to be a term you used and one I never have.
On top of your conspiracy claims regarding the HIV industry and the FDA, your outright lie that there is not a ban on CS by the FDA for claims of treating afflictions, your irrational notion of how medical trials are conducted, your total lack of any paper trail for any of your claimed work like even a scanned image of you NIH application, and your very sick and twisted attempt to recommend that people suffering from an immunodeficiency disorder like Job’s syndrome try using colloidal silver to treat the desease, you do not come across as a rational and reasoned person.
Rational and reasoned people do not conduct themselves as you have here.
So unless you expect people to bow to you and your claimed intellect regarding so many topics, fields of knowledge and membership in the ISPE, then you need to actually back up your claims with something other than your hollow word.
I’m curious about one matter. Just how long have you been a member of the ISPE?
Turnabout is fair play. You've been stalking me and badgering me about everything *but* the topic of this and any other post relating to CS with a tirade of insults, misrepresentations, and faulty logic, and then accusing me of being a liar when *I'm* the one who's been completely open from day one, using my own name as the basis for my screen name, and posting a link to my personal webpage (which is perfectly consistent with all of my "tall tales").
Turnabout is fair play. You've been stalking me and badgering me about everything *but* the topic of this and any other post relating to CS with a tirade of insults, misrepresentations, and faulty logic, and then accusing me of being a liar when *I'm* the one who's been completely open from day one, using my own name as the basis for my screen name, and posting a link to my personal webpage (which is perfectly consistent with all of my "tall tales").
I have already mentioned in several posts so far that I am a layman.
No, you haven't. You've posted hypothetical questions and evasive answers about people who work in factories. I've worked in more than one factory in my youth and actually quite enjoyed it. Much better than the summer where I dug ditches installing septic systems for my brother, who still does the same, and has done quite well for himself financially over the years. (His net worth exceeds mine.)
Now that it's been established that this isn't an argument between you, the "real" scientist, and me, a fool, then we can work on the "CTer" bullsh*t.
That's called "progress".
You're seeing CTer's under your bed, if your gage on who's a CTer is based on the words they use. That's "witch-hunt logic". Words are used to communicate, communication is between two people who use the same words to mean the same thing. I've used the word "disinformation" many times, as we both know what it means. One thing about working in the defense industry, you occasionally rub shoulders with the CIA. When you do, you have to keep your head on straight, otherwise you'll start thinking everything's part of a sinister plot. That's where it comes in handy to recognize that not everyone who agrees is in a conspiracy with each other.
For example, the FDA doesn't like CS because they can't regulate it, it's too easy to make and people can and have turned blue from making their own. They're a regulatory agency, and a drug that they can't regulate, they need to suppress somehow in order to prevent "chaos" (from their perspective). Large pharmaceutical companies have invested billions of dollars in R&D on their current suite of antibiotics/antivirals based on projections of sales, and one thing they don't want to happen is some simple, unpatentable medication to come along that would work on both bacteria and viruses, both at the same time. Their profits would plummet. They "hate" CS *because* the research shows it works, and they know it. Foley catheters, burn victim wraps, incorporating "nanosilver particles" in small markets, they can survive. It's when CS is discovered to treat colds and other common infections that their stocks are going to go down the drains.
Both have reason to hate the very idea of CS, but that doesn't mean that they've entered into a conspiracy to stop it. You see conspiracies where I don't. I've been clear on this topic. No conspiracy. None needed to explain what's happening. I'm not a "conspiracy nut". That tactic is old and worn-out by now. You're only trying to save face by reasserting it over and over and over, and you're just making this thread dull and boring with the repetitious/fallacious accusations.
This is an inherently interesting topic, and you've succeeded in making it dull. That's all you've managed to accomplish. You aren't winning any fans out there by calling me a liar, because people are starting to recognize that I'm the one who's been open and honest, and you're the one who's been evasive and dishonest. You think my resume is unusual to the point of incredible? You don't know the half of it. But it hasn't been fun, and I haven't been paid that much more than the usual grunt-level aerospace engineer. When my managers have realized that I'm the guy with the steep learning curve (154 IQ), they've assigned me to the hardest programs they need to staff.
Make sense?
SDI was no picnic, I spent a year and a half proving that a Distributed Sparse Array Radar wouldn't work. In three phases. First, it was an idea proposed under FORECAST II, and I was one of six engineers assigned to weed-out the dumb ideas. I handled about 40% of about 300 ideas, and contributed one of my own to the heap. One of the dumb ideas was the DSA radar. Not a good idea, quick-kill. It got resurrected. Turns out the guy who came up with the idea was a drinking buddy of the general in-charge of SDI (Abramson sp?). So I was given a month to reconsider the concept and explore it deeper. (This was when I was working for SAIC as a Senior Staff Scientist while attending grad school at night.) What was wrong with the idea was simple physics wouldn't let it work, which was what I'd said when reviewing it the first time. So I spent a month proving that not only would it not work, it'd be expensive to launch and easy to defeat. Again, that was insufficient to kill the idea, and we were given funding to do another 16-month study of the concept. I ended up writing about 300 pages on a concept that was simply a waste of time before they ended up accepting its fate. A year and a half of my career, with nothing of value to show for it. (I do, however, now have an encyclopedic knowledge about how NOT to design a space-based radar.)
Sound like fun? It wasn't.
Incidentally, not every general is an idiot, most actually are really smart, but politics *always* plays a role in any billion+ dollar program.
I'm not alone in having this sort of story, most engineering programs get canceled before their production. Everybody in aerospace/defense has a similar story. It's called "experience", and sometimes along with cynicism, you get a little bitter about the good programs you really wanted to see happen, but got screwed up by upper management's bungling. The longer you work for corporations, the more Dilbert comics you appreciate. Corporations as charities, putting the general good above corporate profits? Not quite. The bottom line is profits, and treatments are more profitable than cures, pure and simple, and they invest their R&D accordingly, and potential cures just never quite make the cut. (Incidentally, the SEC *requires* corporate officers to make decisions based on the good of the corporations' *investors*, doing otherwise could land them in prison.)
Like DCA, at the link you provided, starting out optimistic about finding funding for human trials, saying that they could be complete with human trials by the end of 2007, and in their update, asking for private donations because the major pharmaceutical companies wouldn't pay for something they couldn't own, and the corporations are already making lots of profits from the chemotherapeutic agents they're currently marketing.
Conspiracy? None needed. You're the only one here who thinks it's necessary.
When corporations find ways of patenting "nanosilver hydrosol" for medical applications, they charge ahead and jump through all the FDA's hoops and get "nanosilver hydrosol"-based products approved by the FDA, and then, at *those* websites, they're free to acknowledge that it kills a wide variety of pathogens without fear of FDA reprisals. Maybe you remember those quotes in RED from a prior post that came straight from an FDA-approved product for burn patients, stating in Plain English that "ionic silver kills MRSA".
Colloidal silver, properly made, is just nanoparticles of silver in deionized water at ultralow concentrations, far below any "toxic" limit. It's the nanoparticles that do the work. The medium they're in is irrelevant, so long as it doesn't chemically attack the nanoparticles and make them too small to work against the enzymes that pathogens use to breach cell membranes. It works, IMO, by defeating the virulence of the pathogens, rather than killing the pathogens outright. That would explain why pathogens in growth media weren't killed in the simple-minded tests that the FDA carried-out. No cell membranes to breach in growth media, it's like feeding soft food to an animal with no teeth.
You are truly amazing, and not in a fashion that might swell your ego more.
Out of that entire post, you are still hung up on my forum name? How myopic and juvenile can you get?
And playing games with the title, topic and purpose of my site and podcast in order to insult me more? Can you pick a different tactic or is that all you are capable of?
The site was created for the podcast and the podcast is self explanatory.
QUOTE
You picked the screen name of "GeneSplicer".
yes, and so? I picked the name that I use and had already established on my podcast based on my name and the name and purpose of the show.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You picked the screen name of "GeneSplicer". |
yes, and so? I picked the name that I use and had already established on my podcast based on my name and the name and purpose of the show.
Splicing genes is something scientists do. And you assert that I'm at-fault for misinterpreting your screen name.
Yes, because you jumped to the conclusion based solely on my screen name here and totally ignoring or were unable to read my signature and follow the links.
Odd how you have talked about doing research yet you cannot follow posted links.
QUOTE
Are you a scientist or not?
Let me guess. If I say no, then you see no further reason to debate? Or do I get some comment about how I am unqualified to debate you like I believe you claimed when others disagreed with you.
I have already mentioned in several posts so far that I am a layman. In your rush to post personal insults and complain about the reading comprehension of others, did you fail you read and comprehend that when I posted it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you a scientist or not? |
Let me guess. If I say no, then you see no further reason to debate? Or do I get some comment about how I am unqualified to debate you like I believe you claimed when others disagreed with you.
I have already mentioned in several posts so far that I am a layman. In your rush to post personal insults and complain about the reading comprehension of others, did you fail you read and comprehend that when I posted it?
Thanks for pointing-out my error, when I get tired, I tend to write phonetically. I meant to call you a "know-nothing poser", not a "no-nothing poser."
Wow. Another excuse that does not stand up to scrutiny. So you must have been “tired” when you posted that comment twice. Again, how convenient.
QUOTE
I'll correct the mistake next time I provide you with feedback.
Oh joy. A threat. You mean you are now stalking me and going to post more negative feedback? Wow. Your ego does rule you.
So tell me again how you have such problems with people abusing the feedback feature. So you cannot practice what you preach.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'll correct the mistake next time I provide you with feedback. |
Oh joy. A threat. You mean you are now stalking me and going to post more negative feedback? Wow. Your ego does rule you.
So tell me again how you have such problems with people abusing the feedback feature. So you cannot practice what you preach.
My points weren't intended to insult your age, they were meant to point out how adults usually understand things that naive students/teenagers don't get, like why a person doesn't sue a millionaire when he's having to borrow money to pay the rent when business is slow/nonexistent.
And again, what you claim is not supported by what you post. So you did not mean to insult me by calling me young on more than one occasion yet continue to do just that here again.
Again, you can keep claiming you invented a litany of items that were stolen by one person after another, but without proof, they are still just a series of tall tales. Your excuses do not change that.
QUOTE
As it was for many of us who worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative when the Soviet Union started showing signs of its imminent collapse. For a few years, I worked two jobs, one as a defense consultant, the other, starting my own bioengineering company.
And that was when you could barely pay the rent for your bioengineer company? Contractors working on SDI or similar project of the time, especially one with a high ranking station as you claim to have possessed, were far from hurting monetarily.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As it was for many of us who worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative when the Soviet Union started showing signs of its imminent collapse. For a few years, I worked two jobs, one as a defense consultant, the other, starting my own bioengineering company. |
And that was when you could barely pay the rent for your bioengineer company? Contractors working on SDI or similar project of the time, especially one with a high ranking station as you claim to have possessed, were far from hurting monetarily.
Maybe you aren't a teenager, but there are a lot of instances where you sound like one.
Then perhaps you should again follow your own advise and perform a bit of research. Listening to a few of my podcasts would have clear that fallacy right up.
And again, odd how someone who “sounds like” a teenager has been able to illustrate just how your claims about CS are not backed by facts.
It is typical for a person with no argument or ability to back up their claims to resort to making comments about the poster as you have done with me. Again, such comments like your accusation that I worked for a pharmaceutical company, was a factory worker or just a teenager.
And another odd thing is how you, a person who is a member of such an organization as the ISPE, has such poor diction yet you claim that I “sound like” a teenager.
QUOTE
Perhaps you're older than I am, and are losing your memory,
And again, more personal insults. So I go from being a no-nothing teenager to a adult whose mind has become infirmed with age or malady.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you're older than I am, and are losing your memory, |
And again, more personal insults. So I go from being a no-nothing teenager to a adult whose mind has become infirmed with age or malady.
but I posted a link to an FDA-approved product for burn victims which consisted of silver-coated plastic film which stated unequivocally that "ionic silver kills MRSA" and that it was known to be a wide-spectrum microbicide,
And again, you misrepresent legitimate research and products. The nanocrystal silver bandages that are used are used to block the transmission of MRSA, not to cure it as you tried to originally spin the claim to state. It was not used to treat or cure a person who had MRSA.
QUOTE
and another link to another FDA-approved product that incorporates silver nanoparticles into Foley catheters to suppress infections normally-associated with catheterization.
And again, you misrepresent legitimate products. A catheter that incorporates silver to prevent the growth of organisms on that catheter does not support the use of colloidal silver as you fallaciously tried to spin over and over. Such impregnation would not treat a person who had a tract infection, so again your claims are simply not true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and another link to another FDA-approved product that incorporates silver nanoparticles into Foley catheters to suppress infections normally-associated with catheterization. |
And again, you misrepresent legitimate products. A catheter that incorporates silver to prevent the growth of organisms on that catheter does not support the use of colloidal silver as you fallaciously tried to spin over and over. Such impregnation would not treat a person who had a tract infection, so again your claims are simply not true.
Plus the link to the UTexas research that studied "nanosilver hydrosol" and its effect on the AIDS virus.
What link? You forgot to post it. If you mean the research of using silver nanoparticles in vitro, then again, you misrepresent that research. Something affecting HIV in a petri dish is not the same as being able to cure HIV in a living human body. You have so far claimed that promising research was indeed cures for diseases like HIV and cancer.
QUOTE
And I think you've forgotten that pharmaceutical companies actually continued to make colloidal silver under FDA approval until 1975.
Cite your source for that claim please. You may be right, but you play so fast and loose with facts that what you claim cannot be trusted on face value in such matters.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And I think you've forgotten that pharmaceutical companies actually continued to make colloidal silver under FDA approval until 1975. |
Cite your source for that claim please. You may be right, but you play so fast and loose with facts that what you claim cannot be trusted on face value in such matters.
Maybe that sounds like an eternity ago to you, like something from the dark ages, but I was a senior in engineering school in 1975. The FDA existed and approved its sale and use long after the discovery of penicillin. They've only recently declared war on it.
You mean by banning it like you stated they had not? And again, such terminology as “war on it”. Banning a useless substance is not committing war on it, suppressing it or engaging in misinformation as you keep claiming.
QUOTE
These days, it's known that particle size matters, and you can get good results with tiny total quantities of silver (10 parts-per-million, a teaspoon per day, cures malaria in 5.6 days, according to the research study performed in Africa by British scientists working with US Army doctors.)
And again, your source for that claim? You have again failed to post it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These days, it's known that particle size matters, and you can get good results with tiny total quantities of silver (10 parts-per-million, a teaspoon per day, cures malaria in 5.6 days, according to the research study performed in Africa by British scientists working with US Army doctors.) |
And again, your source for that claim? You have again failed to post it.
That was the study you referred-to as "unscientific" because it had no controls.
Yes, and again, it was. And again, a person so familiar with the biotech industry as you claim would know that to be true.
But let us ignore those facts for a moment and run with the notion that giving everyone who is ill CS is a valid test. If CS was so effective, then why has there been no continuing research that builds upon that initial success? Normally, research and clinical trials, properly done, that show promising results leads to further testing.
QUOTE
Controls in that clinical study, for malaria, would've resulted in deaths, and you can't require a medical doctor to allow a patient to go untreated when he'll die as a consequence just to satisfy your "standards" of scientific research.
You still cannot honestly represent what I posted. How sad is it that you have to continue to distort or outright lie about what I have claimed?
You also claimed that modern malaria drugs were ineffective. That is yet another claim you did not back up with anything but your claim.
And again, they are not my standards as you keep falsely claiming. You would think that a person who claims to be so involved in the biomedical industry would be familiar with proper study methods and testing methods.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Controls in that clinical study, for malaria, would've resulted in deaths, and you can't require a medical doctor to allow a patient to go untreated when he'll die as a consequence just to satisfy your "standards" of scientific research. |
You still cannot honestly represent what I posted. How sad is it that you have to continue to distort or outright lie about what I have claimed?
You also claimed that modern malaria drugs were ineffective. That is yet another claim you did not back up with anything but your claim.
And again, they are not my standards as you keep falsely claiming. You would think that a person who claims to be so involved in the biomedical industry would be familiar with proper study methods and testing methods.
Which brings us back to the same question - Are you the dumbest scientist I've ever run across, or are you a poser who wants people to *think* he's a scientist?
No, that brings you back to more personal insults and erroneous claims about what I have posted. Please cite where I claimed to be a scientist. Your jumping to conclusions isn’t valid.
You keep making such odd and fanciful claims and are unable to back them up with research or facts from legitimate sources.
Legitimate sources you castigate and make such irrational claims that they are suppressing or have declared war on colloidal silver and still think you are being rational.
And after someone challenges your unsubstantial claims, you launch into a litany of personal insults rather than backing up your claims with facts.
Then there are all the times that you just recently claimed that I stated one thing or another yet you still cannot cite exactly where I stated what you claim. How about your recent claim that I called you an imbecile? Odd how that turned out to be a term you used and one I never have.
On top of your conspiracy claims regarding the HIV industry and the FDA, your outright lie that there is not a ban on CS by the FDA for claims of treating afflictions, your irrational notion of how medical trials are conducted, your total lack of any paper trail for any of your claimed work like even a scanned image of you NIH application, and your very sick and twisted attempt to recommend that people suffering from an immunodeficiency disorder like Job’s syndrome try using colloidal silver to treat the desease, you do not come across as a rational and reasoned person.
Rational and reasoned people do not conduct themselves as you have here.
So unless you expect people to bow to you and your claimed intellect regarding so many topics, fields of knowledge and membership in the ISPE, then you need to actually back up your claims with something other than your hollow word.
I’m curious about one matter. Just how long have you been a member of the ISPE?
QUOTE
You mean you are now stalking me and going to post more negative feedback?
Turnabout is fair play. You've been stalking me and badgering me about everything *but* the topic of this and any other post relating to CS with a tirade of insults, misrepresentations, and faulty logic, and then accusing me of being a liar when *I'm* the one who's been completely open from day one, using my own name as the basis for my screen name, and posting a link to my personal webpage (which is perfectly consistent with all of my "tall tales").
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You mean you are now stalking me and going to post more negative feedback? |
Turnabout is fair play. You've been stalking me and badgering me about everything *but* the topic of this and any other post relating to CS with a tirade of insults, misrepresentations, and faulty logic, and then accusing me of being a liar when *I'm* the one who's been completely open from day one, using my own name as the basis for my screen name, and posting a link to my personal webpage (which is perfectly consistent with all of my "tall tales").
I have already mentioned in several posts so far that I am a layman.
No, you haven't. You've posted hypothetical questions and evasive answers about people who work in factories. I've worked in more than one factory in my youth and actually quite enjoyed it. Much better than the summer where I dug ditches installing septic systems for my brother, who still does the same, and has done quite well for himself financially over the years. (His net worth exceeds mine.)
Now that it's been established that this isn't an argument between you, the "real" scientist, and me, a fool, then we can work on the "CTer" bullsh*t.
That's called "progress".
You're seeing CTer's under your bed, if your gage on who's a CTer is based on the words they use. That's "witch-hunt logic". Words are used to communicate, communication is between two people who use the same words to mean the same thing. I've used the word "disinformation" many times, as we both know what it means. One thing about working in the defense industry, you occasionally rub shoulders with the CIA. When you do, you have to keep your head on straight, otherwise you'll start thinking everything's part of a sinister plot. That's where it comes in handy to recognize that not everyone who agrees is in a conspiracy with each other.
For example, the FDA doesn't like CS because they can't regulate it, it's too easy to make and people can and have turned blue from making their own. They're a regulatory agency, and a drug that they can't regulate, they need to suppress somehow in order to prevent "chaos" (from their perspective). Large pharmaceutical companies have invested billions of dollars in R&D on their current suite of antibiotics/antivirals based on projections of sales, and one thing they don't want to happen is some simple, unpatentable medication to come along that would work on both bacteria and viruses, both at the same time. Their profits would plummet. They "hate" CS *because* the research shows it works, and they know it. Foley catheters, burn victim wraps, incorporating "nanosilver particles" in small markets, they can survive. It's when CS is discovered to treat colds and other common infections that their stocks are going to go down the drains.
Both have reason to hate the very idea of CS, but that doesn't mean that they've entered into a conspiracy to stop it. You see conspiracies where I don't. I've been clear on this topic. No conspiracy. None needed to explain what's happening. I'm not a "conspiracy nut". That tactic is old and worn-out by now. You're only trying to save face by reasserting it over and over and over, and you're just making this thread dull and boring with the repetitious/fallacious accusations.
This is an inherently interesting topic, and you've succeeded in making it dull. That's all you've managed to accomplish. You aren't winning any fans out there by calling me a liar, because people are starting to recognize that I'm the one who's been open and honest, and you're the one who's been evasive and dishonest. You think my resume is unusual to the point of incredible? You don't know the half of it. But it hasn't been fun, and I haven't been paid that much more than the usual grunt-level aerospace engineer. When my managers have realized that I'm the guy with the steep learning curve (154 IQ), they've assigned me to the hardest programs they need to staff.
Make sense?
SDI was no picnic, I spent a year and a half proving that a Distributed Sparse Array Radar wouldn't work. In three phases. First, it was an idea proposed under FORECAST II, and I was one of six engineers assigned to weed-out the dumb ideas. I handled about 40% of about 300 ideas, and contributed one of my own to the heap. One of the dumb ideas was the DSA radar. Not a good idea, quick-kill. It got resurrected. Turns out the guy who came up with the idea was a drinking buddy of the general in-charge of SDI (Abramson sp?). So I was given a month to reconsider the concept and explore it deeper. (This was when I was working for SAIC as a Senior Staff Scientist while attending grad school at night.) What was wrong with the idea was simple physics wouldn't let it work, which was what I'd said when reviewing it the first time. So I spent a month proving that not only would it not work, it'd be expensive to launch and easy to defeat. Again, that was insufficient to kill the idea, and we were given funding to do another 16-month study of the concept. I ended up writing about 300 pages on a concept that was simply a waste of time before they ended up accepting its fate. A year and a half of my career, with nothing of value to show for it. (I do, however, now have an encyclopedic knowledge about how NOT to design a space-based radar.)
Sound like fun? It wasn't.
Incidentally, not every general is an idiot, most actually are really smart, but politics *always* plays a role in any billion+ dollar program.
I'm not alone in having this sort of story, most engineering programs get canceled before their production. Everybody in aerospace/defense has a similar story. It's called "experience", and sometimes along with cynicism, you get a little bitter about the good programs you really wanted to see happen, but got screwed up by upper management's bungling. The longer you work for corporations, the more Dilbert comics you appreciate. Corporations as charities, putting the general good above corporate profits? Not quite. The bottom line is profits, and treatments are more profitable than cures, pure and simple, and they invest their R&D accordingly, and potential cures just never quite make the cut. (Incidentally, the SEC *requires* corporate officers to make decisions based on the good of the corporations' *investors*, doing otherwise could land them in prison.)
Like DCA, at the link you provided, starting out optimistic about finding funding for human trials, saying that they could be complete with human trials by the end of 2007, and in their update, asking for private donations because the major pharmaceutical companies wouldn't pay for something they couldn't own, and the corporations are already making lots of profits from the chemotherapeutic agents they're currently marketing.
Conspiracy? None needed. You're the only one here who thinks it's necessary.
When corporations find ways of patenting "nanosilver hydrosol" for medical applications, they charge ahead and jump through all the FDA's hoops and get "nanosilver hydrosol"-based products approved by the FDA, and then, at *those* websites, they're free to acknowledge that it kills a wide variety of pathogens without fear of FDA reprisals. Maybe you remember those quotes in RED from a prior post that came straight from an FDA-approved product for burn patients, stating in Plain English that "ionic silver kills MRSA".
Colloidal silver, properly made, is just nanoparticles of silver in deionized water at ultralow concentrations, far below any "toxic" limit. It's the nanoparticles that do the work. The medium they're in is irrelevant, so long as it doesn't chemically attack the nanoparticles and make them too small to work against the enzymes that pathogens use to breach cell membranes. It works, IMO, by defeating the virulence of the pathogens, rather than killing the pathogens outright. That would explain why pathogens in growth media weren't killed in the simple-minded tests that the FDA carried-out. No cell membranes to breach in growth media, it's like feeding soft food to an animal with no teeth.
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Turnabout is fair play. You've been stalking me
And that is yet another claim you cannot back up. Care to explain why, if I was stalking you, that I have left no one negative feedback for you yet you feel the need to threaten to do so again and again?
Again, care to cite where I have posted any such cliam? You continue to claim I stated one thing or another yet cannot cite4 exactly where I have.
And again, I can back up what I have stated. Why are you unable to do so?
Again, care to cite where I have posted any such cliam? You continue to claim I stated one thing or another yet cannot cite4 exactly where I have.
And again, I can back up what I have stated. Why are you unable to do so?
and then accusing me of being a liar when *I'm* the one who's been completely open from day one, using my own name as the basis for my screen name, and posting a link to my personal webpage (which is perfectly consistent with all of my "tall tales").
You are a liar especially when you keep claiming I made statement I have not. Again, odd how you cannot cite where I have made these claims.
And yes, your tall tales are just that, for the most part, without something other than your word to back it up. And again, your claimed long and creative career is backed up by nothing but your claims.
You really need to stop complaining about the reading comprehension of others.
Link
You really need to stop complaining about the reading comprehension of others.
Link
And if I be such a lowly person, then you might have to return that membership to your 1% intelligence club seeing how such a layman as I was able to illustrate just how your claims have no material and verifiable support. And I didn't have to use the tactics you did of personal comments.
That is just this tread.
No, I have addressed how you seem to think that calling a person a factory worker is a castigation or a comment about how such a person would unable to debate such topics as what you have posted or claimed. Are you ignorant of the fact of so many members of MESA and I’m sure the ISPE that are not in profession that reflect their intellect?
No, I have addressed how you seem to think that calling a person a factory worker is a castigation or a comment about how such a person would unable to debate such topics as what you have posted or claimed. Are you ignorant of the fact of so many members of MESA and I’m sure the ISPE that are not in profession that reflect their intellect?
I've worked in more than one factory in my youth and actually quite enjoyed it. Much better than the summer where I dug ditches installing septic systems for my brother, who still does the same, and has done quite well for himself financially over the years. (His net worth exceeds mine.)
Yes, I’m sure. If what you claimed were true, then you would not have called me a factory worker as a means to insult unless fo course you do look down upon such people.
No, this still is an argument between you and me, but your form of argument is one where you have to resort to insults and threats rather than the argument of facts and such. Again, if what you claimed were true, then why are you unable to back it up?
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist. Are you now claiming I called you a fool like you once claimed that I called you an imbecile?
And why have you not commented on the fact that your claim was simply erroneous?
No, this still is an argument between you and me, but your form of argument is one where you have to resort to insults and threats rather than the argument of facts and such. Again, if what you claimed were true, then why are you unable to back it up?
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist. Are you now claiming I called you a fool like you once claimed that I called you an imbecile?
And why have you not commented on the fact that your claim was simply erroneous?
That's called "progress".
No, that is called misrepresentation and irrelevant banter on your part.
You're seeing CTer's under your bed, if your gage on who's a CTer is based on the words they use.
And another personal insults with a misrepresentation of what I posted. You made this claims before and still have failed to cite where I claimed this.
Not at all since I never made such a claim. Care to cite where?
Not at all since I never made such a claim. Care to cite where?
Words are used to communicate, communication is between two people who use the same words to mean the same thing. I've used the word "disinformation" many times, as we both know what it means.
Yes, and in the manner you used it, it is in support of a conspiracy theory. Your equivocations does not change that fact.
More tall tales about your past? And again, taken on a whole of what you have posted her and across the web, you support and preach the rhetoric of a CTer.
More tall tales about your past? And again, taken on a whole of what you have posted her and across the web, you support and preach the rhetoric of a CTer.
For example, the FDA doesn't like CS because they can't regulate it, it's too easy to make and people can and have turned blue from making their own. They're a regulatory agency, and a drug that they can't regulate, they need to suppress somehow in order to prevent "chaos" (from their perspective).
And again, your equivocations and spin here does not reflect what you have posted prior. Again, you have claimed the FDA doesn’t give a damn about people. You have claimed that CS wasn’t banned for medical use when it has been and you keep trying to compare CS to a drug.
And again, your claim are irrational. If the FDA cannot regulate something that anyone can create, then why do you also claim that they have declared war on it and have committed to disseminating disinformation about it?
And what of other governments who have taken similar stances regarding colloidal silver?
Again, yes, more claims of disease industry and Big Pharma. And you know that these companies know this based upon what facts? Again, all I see are your unsubstantiated claims.
Foley catheters, burn victim wraps, incorporating "nanosilver particles" in small markets, they can survive.
And again, your misrepresentation of these legitimate products is the act of an intellectually dishonest person. Such products do not support your claims regarding colloidal silver and you have misrepresented not only how they function but how they are used.
Again, yes, more claims of disease industry and Big Pharma. And you know that these companies know this based upon what facts? Again, all I see are your unsubstantiated claims.
Foley catheters, burn victim wraps, incorporating "nanosilver particles" in small markets, they can survive.
And again, your misrepresentation of these legitimate products is the act of an intellectually dishonest person. Such products do not support your claims regarding colloidal silver and you have misrepresented not only how they function but how they are used.
It's when CS is discovered to treat colds and other common infections that their stocks are going to go down the drains.
Ah. The prediction. I was wonder if I would see it posted by you. You have already taken several other typical actions of a conspiracy theorist like attacking me personally, claiming I worked for Big Pharma when I challenged your claims and then try to just claim I am a no-nothing.
Now we get the prediction of what will happen once what you blindly believe to be fact is accepted or manifests itself. As with the 9/11 truthers claiming that people in the government will fact treason charges or that the government will face ridicule and similar charges once the manned moon mission is revealed to be a hoax, you predict that once the word gets out about colloidal silver, that Big Pharma is going down.
So tell me again how what you claim does not support a conspiracy theory?
No, of course not. And of course, all those claims and other conspiracy theories that the FDA and Big Pharma are in collaboration are just in error. Right.
No, of course not. And of course, all those claims and other conspiracy theories that the FDA and Big Pharma are in collaboration are just in error. Right.
You see conspiracies where I don't.
Right. You just happen to preach the same claims and take the same stance as a CTer. Honest mistake to understand right?
But that is just the point. Your claims are those of a conspiracy theorist. You can keep claiming they are not, but the fact remains that they are.
But that is just the point. Your claims are those of a conspiracy theorist. You can keep claiming they are not, but the fact remains that they are.
I'm not a "conspiracy nut". That tactic is old and worn-out by now.
And if that is true, then why do you still protest? If it is so obvious and you have made your point, then why keep protesting what I have stated, unless…
And again, I can cite your own posts as proof of what I have stated.
I am not the one resorting to misrepresentations of research or what others have posted. Again, you claim I stated this or that yet cannot cite where I did so.
Then again, why do you keep replying and protesting if I am so wrong?
Is it because that you have to resort to one equivocation after another in an effort to explain away your earlier posts?
If you are correct, why the need to personally insult me when I have mode no such claims about you?
Why the need to threaten o stalk and keep posting repetitions negatives, an action that is hypocritical to your earlier protestation of abuse of the feedback system?
I am not the one resorting to misrepresentations of research or what others have posted. Again, you claim I stated this or that yet cannot cite where I did so.
Then again, why do you keep replying and protesting if I am so wrong?
Is it because that you have to resort to one equivocation after another in an effort to explain away your earlier posts?
If you are correct, why the need to personally insult me when I have mode no such claims about you?
Why the need to threaten o stalk and keep posting repetitions negatives, an action that is hypocritical to your earlier protestation of abuse of the feedback system?
This is an inherently interesting topic, and you've succeeded in making it dull.
Then why do you keep replying tome? And please speak for yourself. I find your equivocations, excuses and ill-tempered actions quite interesting.
Not at all, but keep thinking that. I’m sure it is comforting to you.
Not at all, but keep thinking that. I’m sure it is comforting to you.
You aren't winning any fans out there by calling me a liar, because people are starting to recognize that I'm the one who's been open and honest, and you're the one who's been evasive and dishonest.
First of all, I do not do this to win fans. In this case, you support junk and pseudoscience and I called you on it. You have been unable to back up your claims, so you took to attacking me personally.
Secondly, if anyone feels as you claim they do, they can leave me feedback stating such, PM me or email me via this forum or directly.
And lastly, you are a lair. You have claimed that I have stated many thing that I have not and have failed to cite where I stated what you claimed I did.
One specific case was your claim that I called you an imbecile. I even posted a link to a search of the entire Physorg forum with the parameters of my forum name, the term “imbecile” and set for any date.
That search revealed that I have never used that term here. That same search revealed how you used the term at least twice when commenting about others.
So if that is not a lie on your part, what was it?
Wow. You really do think allot about yourself. To correct you again, I stated your claimed career, not your actual one since all we have to go on is your claims and tall tales.
Wow. You really do think allot about yourself. To correct you again, I stated your claimed career, not your actual one since all we have to go on is your claims and tall tales.
But it hasn't been fun, and I haven't been paid that much more than the usual grunt-level aerospace engineer.
And that is yet another odd claim. Your classification of aerospace engineers does not reflect reality.
Yes, more tall tales. Yet after being assigned to such tasks, your name remains hidden or somehow never seen or traceable in public records or anything that you could post here. And then there are your claims about lacking funds or money after being assigned such important positions.
Yes, more tall tales. Yet after being assigned to such tasks, your name remains hidden or somehow never seen or traceable in public records or anything that you could post here. And then there are your claims about lacking funds or money after being assigned such important positions.
Make sense?
No, but your tall tales are entertaining to some extent.
Yes, more tall tales and again, nothing to show or to back up your claims.
Yes, more tall tales and again, nothing to show or to back up your claims.
Like DCA, at the link you provided, starting out optimistic about finding funding for human trials, saying that they could be complete with human trials by the end of 2007, and in their update, asking for private donations because the major pharmaceutical companies wouldn't pay for something they couldn't own, and the corporations are already making lots of profits from the chemotherapeutic agents they're currently marketing.
You mean the website you flippantly twisted the name of earlier?
And again, your posts are telling. Why are you just slamming pharmaceuticals?
Again, why not approach all those alternative medicine and holistic companies for funding of such research?
And again, the cancer industry claim.
Not so judging by your own posts. And again, the terminology you use, those you selectively castigate or apply a standard to and your claims still support what I have stated.
Not so judging by your own posts. And again, the terminology you use, those you selectively castigate or apply a standard to and your claims still support what I have stated.
When corporations find ways of patenting "nanosilver hydrosol" for medical applications, they charge ahead and jump through all the FDA's hoops and get "nanosilver hydrosol"-based products approved by the FDA, and then, at *those* websites, they're free to acknowledge that it kills a wide variety of pathogens without fear of FDA reprisals.
Again, claim after claim with nothing to back it up but your claims and misrepresentations. Nanosilver or nanocrystal and its use does not support your claims about colloidal silver.
If what you claimed were true, then any test substituting colloidal silver for the nanosilver or nanocrystal would produce the same results. Why then does such research not exists?
I remember your misrepresentations of legitimate research and trying to claim is supported your claims about colloidal silver.
Post it again, and I will show you what I mean.
And that is yet another claim you cannot back up. Care to explain why, if I was stalking you, that I have left no one negative feedback for you yet you feel the need to threaten to do so again and again?
QUOTE
and badgering me about everything *but* the topic of this and any other post relating to CS with a tirade of insults, misrepresentations, and faulty logic,
Again, care to cite where I have posted any such cliam? You continue to claim I stated one thing or another yet cannot cite4 exactly where I have.
And again, I can back up what I have stated. Why are you unable to do so?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and badgering me about everything *but* the topic of this and any other post relating to CS with a tirade of insults, misrepresentations, and faulty logic, |
Again, care to cite where I have posted any such cliam? You continue to claim I stated one thing or another yet cannot cite4 exactly where I have.
And again, I can back up what I have stated. Why are you unable to do so?
and then accusing me of being a liar when *I'm* the one who's been completely open from day one, using my own name as the basis for my screen name, and posting a link to my personal webpage (which is perfectly consistent with all of my "tall tales").
You are a liar especially when you keep claiming I made statement I have not. Again, odd how you cannot cite where I have made these claims.
And yes, your tall tales are just that, for the most part, without something other than your word to back it up. And again, your claimed long and creative career is backed up by nothing but your claims.
QUOTE
No, you haven't.
You really need to stop complaining about the reading comprehension of others.
Link
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, you haven't. |
You really need to stop complaining about the reading comprehension of others.
Link
And if I be such a lowly person, then you might have to return that membership to your 1% intelligence club seeing how such a layman as I was able to illustrate just how your claims have no material and verifiable support. And I didn't have to use the tactics you did of personal comments.
That is just this tread.
QUOTE
You've posted hypothetical questions and evasive answers about people who work in factories.
No, I have addressed how you seem to think that calling a person a factory worker is a castigation or a comment about how such a person would unable to debate such topics as what you have posted or claimed. Are you ignorant of the fact of so many members of MESA and I’m sure the ISPE that are not in profession that reflect their intellect?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You've posted hypothetical questions and evasive answers about people who work in factories. |
No, I have addressed how you seem to think that calling a person a factory worker is a castigation or a comment about how such a person would unable to debate such topics as what you have posted or claimed. Are you ignorant of the fact of so many members of MESA and I’m sure the ISPE that are not in profession that reflect their intellect?
I've worked in more than one factory in my youth and actually quite enjoyed it. Much better than the summer where I dug ditches installing septic systems for my brother, who still does the same, and has done quite well for himself financially over the years. (His net worth exceeds mine.)
Yes, I’m sure. If what you claimed were true, then you would not have called me a factory worker as a means to insult unless fo course you do look down upon such people.
QUOTE
Now that it's been established that this isn't an argument between you, the "real" scientist, and me, a fool, then we can work on the "CTer" bullsh*t.
No, this still is an argument between you and me, but your form of argument is one where you have to resort to insults and threats rather than the argument of facts and such. Again, if what you claimed were true, then why are you unable to back it up?
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist. Are you now claiming I called you a fool like you once claimed that I called you an imbecile?
And why have you not commented on the fact that your claim was simply erroneous?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now that it's been established that this isn't an argument between you, the "real" scientist, and me, a fool, then we can work on the "CTer" bullsh*t. |
No, this still is an argument between you and me, but your form of argument is one where you have to resort to insults and threats rather than the argument of facts and such. Again, if what you claimed were true, then why are you unable to back it up?
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist. Are you now claiming I called you a fool like you once claimed that I called you an imbecile?
And why have you not commented on the fact that your claim was simply erroneous?
That's called "progress".
No, that is called misrepresentation and irrelevant banter on your part.
You're seeing CTer's under your bed, if your gage on who's a CTer is based on the words they use.
And another personal insults with a misrepresentation of what I posted. You made this claims before and still have failed to cite where I claimed this.
QUOTE
That's "witch-hunt logic".
Not at all since I never made such a claim. Care to cite where?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's "witch-hunt logic". |
Not at all since I never made such a claim. Care to cite where?
Words are used to communicate, communication is between two people who use the same words to mean the same thing. I've used the word "disinformation" many times, as we both know what it means.
Yes, and in the manner you used it, it is in support of a conspiracy theory. Your equivocations does not change that fact.
QUOTE
One thing about working in the defense industry, you occasionally rub shoulders with the CIA. When you do, you have to keep your head on straight, otherwise you'll start thinking everything's part of a sinister plot. That's where it comes in handy to recognize that not everyone who agrees is in a conspiracy with each other.
More tall tales about your past? And again, taken on a whole of what you have posted her and across the web, you support and preach the rhetoric of a CTer.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One thing about working in the defense industry, you occasionally rub shoulders with the CIA. When you do, you have to keep your head on straight, otherwise you'll start thinking everything's part of a sinister plot. That's where it comes in handy to recognize that not everyone who agrees is in a conspiracy with each other. |
More tall tales about your past? And again, taken on a whole of what you have posted her and across the web, you support and preach the rhetoric of a CTer.
For example, the FDA doesn't like CS because they can't regulate it, it's too easy to make and people can and have turned blue from making their own. They're a regulatory agency, and a drug that they can't regulate, they need to suppress somehow in order to prevent "chaos" (from their perspective).
And again, your equivocations and spin here does not reflect what you have posted prior. Again, you have claimed the FDA doesn’t give a damn about people. You have claimed that CS wasn’t banned for medical use when it has been and you keep trying to compare CS to a drug.
And again, your claim are irrational. If the FDA cannot regulate something that anyone can create, then why do you also claim that they have declared war on it and have committed to disseminating disinformation about it?
And what of other governments who have taken similar stances regarding colloidal silver?
QUOTE
Large pharmaceutical companies have invested billions of dollars in R&D on their current suite of antibiotics/antivirals based on projections of sales, and one thing they don't want to happen is some simple, unpatentable medication to come along that would work on both bacteria and viruses, both at the same time. Their profits would plummet. They "hate" CS *because* the research shows it works, and they know it.
Again, yes, more claims of disease industry and Big Pharma. And you know that these companies know this based upon what facts? Again, all I see are your unsubstantiated claims.
Foley catheters, burn victim wraps, incorporating "nanosilver particles" in small markets, they can survive.
And again, your misrepresentation of these legitimate products is the act of an intellectually dishonest person. Such products do not support your claims regarding colloidal silver and you have misrepresented not only how they function but how they are used.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Large pharmaceutical companies have invested billions of dollars in R&D on their current suite of antibiotics/antivirals based on projections of sales, and one thing they don't want to happen is some simple, unpatentable medication to come along that would work on both bacteria and viruses, both at the same time. Their profits would plummet. They "hate" CS *because* the research shows it works, and they know it. |
Again, yes, more claims of disease industry and Big Pharma. And you know that these companies know this based upon what facts? Again, all I see are your unsubstantiated claims.
Foley catheters, burn victim wraps, incorporating "nanosilver particles" in small markets, they can survive.
And again, your misrepresentation of these legitimate products is the act of an intellectually dishonest person. Such products do not support your claims regarding colloidal silver and you have misrepresented not only how they function but how they are used.
It's when CS is discovered to treat colds and other common infections that their stocks are going to go down the drains.
Ah. The prediction. I was wonder if I would see it posted by you. You have already taken several other typical actions of a conspiracy theorist like attacking me personally, claiming I worked for Big Pharma when I challenged your claims and then try to just claim I am a no-nothing.
Now we get the prediction of what will happen once what you blindly believe to be fact is accepted or manifests itself. As with the 9/11 truthers claiming that people in the government will fact treason charges or that the government will face ridicule and similar charges once the manned moon mission is revealed to be a hoax, you predict that once the word gets out about colloidal silver, that Big Pharma is going down.
So tell me again how what you claim does not support a conspiracy theory?
QUOTE
Both have reason to hate the very idea of CS, but that doesn't mean that they've entered into a conspiracy to stop it.
No, of course not. And of course, all those claims and other conspiracy theories that the FDA and Big Pharma are in collaboration are just in error. Right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Both have reason to hate the very idea of CS, but that doesn't mean that they've entered into a conspiracy to stop it. |
No, of course not. And of course, all those claims and other conspiracy theories that the FDA and Big Pharma are in collaboration are just in error. Right.
You see conspiracies where I don't.
Right. You just happen to preach the same claims and take the same stance as a CTer. Honest mistake to understand right?
QUOTE
I've been clear on this topic. No conspiracy. None needed to explain what's happening.
But that is just the point. Your claims are those of a conspiracy theorist. You can keep claiming they are not, but the fact remains that they are.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've been clear on this topic. No conspiracy. None needed to explain what's happening. |
But that is just the point. Your claims are those of a conspiracy theorist. You can keep claiming they are not, but the fact remains that they are.
I'm not a "conspiracy nut". That tactic is old and worn-out by now.
And if that is true, then why do you still protest? If it is so obvious and you have made your point, then why keep protesting what I have stated, unless…
And again, I can cite your own posts as proof of what I have stated.
QUOTE
You're only trying to save face by reasserting it over and over and over, and you're just making this thread dull and boring with the repetitious/fallacious accusations.
I am not the one resorting to misrepresentations of research or what others have posted. Again, you claim I stated this or that yet cannot cite where I did so.
Then again, why do you keep replying and protesting if I am so wrong?
Is it because that you have to resort to one equivocation after another in an effort to explain away your earlier posts?
If you are correct, why the need to personally insult me when I have mode no such claims about you?
Why the need to threaten o stalk and keep posting repetitions negatives, an action that is hypocritical to your earlier protestation of abuse of the feedback system?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're only trying to save face by reasserting it over and over and over, and you're just making this thread dull and boring with the repetitious/fallacious accusations. |
I am not the one resorting to misrepresentations of research or what others have posted. Again, you claim I stated this or that yet cannot cite where I did so.
Then again, why do you keep replying and protesting if I am so wrong?
Is it because that you have to resort to one equivocation after another in an effort to explain away your earlier posts?
If you are correct, why the need to personally insult me when I have mode no such claims about you?
Why the need to threaten o stalk and keep posting repetitions negatives, an action that is hypocritical to your earlier protestation of abuse of the feedback system?
This is an inherently interesting topic, and you've succeeded in making it dull.
Then why do you keep replying tome? And please speak for yourself. I find your equivocations, excuses and ill-tempered actions quite interesting.
QUOTE
That's all you've managed to accomplish.
Not at all, but keep thinking that. I’m sure it is comforting to you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's all you've managed to accomplish. |
Not at all, but keep thinking that. I’m sure it is comforting to you.
You aren't winning any fans out there by calling me a liar, because people are starting to recognize that I'm the one who's been open and honest, and you're the one who's been evasive and dishonest.
First of all, I do not do this to win fans. In this case, you support junk and pseudoscience and I called you on it. You have been unable to back up your claims, so you took to attacking me personally.
Secondly, if anyone feels as you claim they do, they can leave me feedback stating such, PM me or email me via this forum or directly.
And lastly, you are a lair. You have claimed that I have stated many thing that I have not and have failed to cite where I stated what you claimed I did.
One specific case was your claim that I called you an imbecile. I even posted a link to a search of the entire Physorg forum with the parameters of my forum name, the term “imbecile” and set for any date.
That search revealed that I have never used that term here. That same search revealed how you used the term at least twice when commenting about others.
So if that is not a lie on your part, what was it?
QUOTE
You think my resume is unusual to the point of incredible? You don't know the half of it.
Wow. You really do think allot about yourself. To correct you again, I stated your claimed career, not your actual one since all we have to go on is your claims and tall tales.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You think my resume is unusual to the point of incredible? You don't know the half of it. |
Wow. You really do think allot about yourself. To correct you again, I stated your claimed career, not your actual one since all we have to go on is your claims and tall tales.
But it hasn't been fun, and I haven't been paid that much more than the usual grunt-level aerospace engineer.
And that is yet another odd claim. Your classification of aerospace engineers does not reflect reality.
QUOTE
When my managers have realized that I'm the guy with the steep learning curve (154 IQ), they've assigned me to the hardest programs they need to staff.
Yes, more tall tales. Yet after being assigned to such tasks, your name remains hidden or somehow never seen or traceable in public records or anything that you could post here. And then there are your claims about lacking funds or money after being assigned such important positions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When my managers have realized that I'm the guy with the steep learning curve (154 IQ), they've assigned me to the hardest programs they need to staff. |
Yes, more tall tales. Yet after being assigned to such tasks, your name remains hidden or somehow never seen or traceable in public records or anything that you could post here. And then there are your claims about lacking funds or money after being assigned such important positions.
Make sense?
No, but your tall tales are entertaining to some extent.
QUOTE
SDI was no picnic, I spent a year …-based radar.)
Yes, more tall tales and again, nothing to show or to back up your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| SDI was no picnic, I spent a year …-based radar.) |
Yes, more tall tales and again, nothing to show or to back up your claims.
Like DCA, at the link you provided, starting out optimistic about finding funding for human trials, saying that they could be complete with human trials by the end of 2007, and in their update, asking for private donations because the major pharmaceutical companies wouldn't pay for something they couldn't own, and the corporations are already making lots of profits from the chemotherapeutic agents they're currently marketing.
You mean the website you flippantly twisted the name of earlier?
And again, your posts are telling. Why are you just slamming pharmaceuticals?
Again, why not approach all those alternative medicine and holistic companies for funding of such research?
And again, the cancer industry claim.
QUOTE
Conspiracy? None needed. You're the only one here who thinks it's necessary.
Not so judging by your own posts. And again, the terminology you use, those you selectively castigate or apply a standard to and your claims still support what I have stated.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conspiracy? None needed. You're the only one here who thinks it's necessary. |
Not so judging by your own posts. And again, the terminology you use, those you selectively castigate or apply a standard to and your claims still support what I have stated.
When corporations find ways of patenting "nanosilver hydrosol" for medical applications, they charge ahead and jump through all the FDA's hoops and get "nanosilver hydrosol"-based products approved by the FDA, and then, at *those* websites, they're free to acknowledge that it kills a wide variety of pathogens without fear of FDA reprisals.
Again, claim after claim with nothing to back it up but your claims and misrepresentations. Nanosilver or nanocrystal and its use does not support your claims about colloidal silver.
If what you claimed were true, then any test substituting colloidal silver for the nanosilver or nanocrystal would produce the same results. Why then does such research not exists?
QUOTE
Maybe you remember those quotes in RED from a prior post that came straight from an FDA-approved product for burn patients, stating in Plain English that "ionic silver kills MRSA".
I remember your misrepresentations of legitimate research and trying to claim is supported your claims about colloidal silver.
Post it again, and I will show you what I mean.
QUOTE (->