esecallum Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 "A method and apparatus for destroying blood borne pathogens is disclosed which utilizes a low intensity direct current to generate positive particles from various metals which destroy viral pathogens. A first electrode comprised of a metal such as silver is inserted into a patient's venous system. Then, a second electrode is placed on the patient's exterior in the vicinity of the first electrode. A low intensity direct current is applied to the first metal electrode which releases silver cations to be bonded to the virus, resulting in the denaturing of the virus. The first electrode is placed in the venous system of the infected patient via a catheter". Dear Sirs I cannot post the whole text as its very long and detailed. I will post the first few paragraphs and a link to it at another site. The main problem with this cure is due to its extreme low cost. The low cost is detrimental to the sale of very expensive patented anti-Aids drugs which generate revenues from $5000 to $20000 per patient per year in the USA for pharmaceutical businesses. The cure is described below in detail and a trial study on humans and animals demonstrated its effectiveness and is included below in the links.The main thing to note is the extreme low cost and efficiency and broad spectrum use compared to drugs. I ask people in this forum to repeat the experiments to satisfy themselves and implement this cure. If you cannot do this then I ask you to please inform other people who may be able or in a position to do so.Especially young open minded doctors in third world countries. The cure has broad spectrum applications and is not confined to Aids but many other infectious blood related diseases as explained below including Hep-C. This device can easily be miniturised to fit on the wrist or arm and in essence consists of nothing more than a silver needle inserted into the vein and an extremely small current passed from this needle electrode to another flat electrode in contact with the surface of the skin. A simple low cost microchip could control the on/off cycle of this very small current and its very low level as detailed below. We can nowadays buy a DVD player for about $35 and this contains motors,transformers,lasers,complex microchips,decoding software,wires,resistors,etc and all this for only $35! The device below is about 10000 times less complicated and only uses a few components and can easily be mass produced for a few dollars or even cents. It uses a single ordinary 1.5 AA battery as a current source and a variable resistor in series to reduce the current down to the 0.000001 amp range.The battery life is very long as a result. A simple circuit or microchip can be made to automatically switch on/off this very small current to the small pure silver needle inserted into a vein and or monitor it to keep it within preset levels as described below.Alternatively the current can be manuelly monitered using a meter and a timer. There is considerable scope for further innovation and expermentation using this method to simplify it even more. The same device can be used repeatedly on different patients after replacing/sterilising the pure silver needle. I hope you can see the cost implications per patient as compared to patented expensive consumable drugs with toxic side effects and understand the political and economic significance of this extreme low cost. My sole motivation is to help people with blood bourne diseases. All your questions can be answered in the above text and the below urls.you will need to read the fully detailed methodology and modus operandi text in the below links a few times before it becomes clear and fully understood. It is suggested very strongly a biophysics student group is set up to further research and implement this cure.The costs are extremely low and no specialised,expensive, complex equipment is required. copy/paste the below very,very,long url carefully:- http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,539,252.WKU.&OS=PN/6,539,252&RS=PN/6,539,252 full schematics in below pdf file which should be saved in addition to saving the above webpage.. http://www.itsmyplace.com/area51/06539252_1.PDF Additional evidence can be supplied to further prove the method works. Yours Sincerely , Dr E .Callum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I'd like to know where the data quoted in the patent comes from, until then it's going in the pile marked 'rubish'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 Actually, this is complete and utter bollocks, as is the rest of the stuff he's posted. And apparently, according to his posts on the BBC science message boards wearing a bra increases risk of breast cancer by 125%. http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3Cmod.1104704094-17675.25%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3Cmod.1104704094-17675.25%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=science.headlines&sort=Te Amazing the stuff some people come up with! can a mod/admin either move his stuff to pseudoscience so we can all laugh at it or get rid of him please? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 well here are some other links he has posted: http://www.cancer-treatment.net/New...Information.htm http://www.cancer-treatment.net/New-Alternative-Cancer-Treatment-Information_Nutshell.htm http://forum.aidworkers.net/message...html?1105057020 his posts elsewhere haven't been deleted yet, but I'm guessing it won't be long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I found another one! http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3Cmod.1102028417-14330.1%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3Cmod.1102028417-14330.1%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=science.headlines&sort=Te I'm sure there are more, but the BBC site is horrendously designed and there is no search function for the message boards, nor can you add external links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I do remember reading a similar article some time ago. Something about the underwire interfering with the Lymphatic system causing a build up of toxins. Possible, but not proven. But this guy is waaaay over the top. That whole board is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 the only thing even close to that idea is the use of Platinum based medication is some cancers. as for voltage use, there was experimentation done in the late 70s early 80`s about the use of a low current passed between 2 broken bones to assist in the bridging of them, it worked in quite a few cases, I`ve heard nothing about it since though, si I assume the result were`nt worrth the effort? similar things where done in severed nerves, I`ve no data on that either. the only other time in medicine is ECT, and I don`t think that`s used now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 Actually' date=' this is complete and utter bollocks, as is the rest of the stuff he's posted. And apparently, according to his posts on the BBC science message boards wearing a bra increases risk of breast cancer by 125%. http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3Cmod.1104704094-17675.25%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3Cmod.1104704094-17675.25%40forum1.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=science.headlines&sort=TeAmazing the stuff some people come up with! can a mod/admin either move his stuff to pseudoscience so we can all laugh at it or get rid of him please? Cheers[/quote'] why was my post moved at the request of someone who cant even do simple math? .a factor of 125 is not 125%. the bra study was as follows:- "In the early 1990s Singers studied 4,500 women in 5 cities across the U.S. about their habits in purchasing and wearing bras. Though his study did not take into account other lifestyle factors, the results are too striking to be denied: * 3 out of 4 women who wore their bras 24 hours per day developed breast cancer. * 1 out of 7 women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed developed breast cancer. * 1 out of 152 women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day got breast cancer. * 1 out of 168 women who wore bras rarely or never acquired breast cancer. So the difference between 24 hour wearing and not at all was 125-fold! 125 fold =12500% thats right 12500%. not 125% as the "drug addict" alleged.he cant even understand junior school arithmetic. and the mods moved my post at HIS request? I ASK THE MODS TO MOVE IT BACK. my post was based on science and trial studies.but none of you actually bothered to check it being too busy bashing each other. also some of the posters can barely string a paragraph together making broad sweeping statements like "rubbish". The moderators seem to be under the spell of drug addicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 No, they are not. They are waiting for the citations, and the results of the study. You know, "peer review"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 No' date=' they are not. They are waiting for the citations, and the results of the study. You know, "peer review"?[/quote'] results already given. the FDA wanted $200 million to do more clinical studies after big pharma got wind of it and they realised what would would happen to ther azt drug sales... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 No, the results; not your conclusions. "Show all working out", as an exam paper might say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 No, the results; not your conclusions. "Show all working out", as an exam paper might say. the results were given in the link within the link. they are not my conclusions. its not my invention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 why was my post moved at the request of someone who cant even do simple math? .a factor of 125 is not 125%. Ok I misread it... because I was laughing too much. And anyone who followed the link would have seen that. 125 fold =12500% thats right 12500%. not 125% as the "drug addict" alleged.he cant even understand junior school arithmetic. like I said I misread it. And my maths is perfectly up to scratch thank you. Or at least I hope it is given I've got a calculations exam on Thursday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 the results were given in the link within the link. they are not my conclusions. its not my invention. Then what is your purpose here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Although I think the above is BS, there is anacdotal evidence from quite a number of people in Australia that they have been "cured" of the symptoms of the moquito-borne virus Ross River Fever after recieving shocks from faulty equipment, electric fences, etc. It would certainly be an area of possible interest to research scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 * 3 out of 4 women who wore their bras 24 hours per day developed breast cancer. * 1 out of 7 women who wore bras more than 12 hour per day but not to bed developed breast cancer. * 1 out of 152 women who wore their bras less than 12 hours per day got breast cancer. * 1 out of 168 women who wore bras rarely or never acquired breast cancer. These test groups are far too small to be of any use. Theres also an unequal amount of people in the groups. This experiment is rubish at best. The only thing funnier then seeing how ridiculous they are, is that people actually take them seriously. Some people's ignorance almost scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 the only other time in medicine is ECT, and I don`t think that`s used now? It is still used. It's very effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Then what is your purpose here? to make people aware that this non drug based method exists and for people to pursue it in further study etc.... this was explained in the starting post. its lamentable people cannot properly read and comprehend whats been written and th information supplied via the links before rushing to launch petty attacks. in any case i just found out company has started using the procedure to cure Hep-C. the treatment lasts only 6 weeks instead of the indefinite use of drugs with toxic side effects and a high mortality rate. I understand Pamela Anderson has Hep-C. Somebody should inform her and collect a suitable reward...... lol lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Although I think the above is BS, there is anacdotal evidence from quite a number of people in Australia that they have been "cured" of the symptoms of the moquito-borne virus Ross River Fever after recieving shocks from faulty equipment, electric fences, etc. It would certainly be an area of possible interest to research scientists. no its not bs. if you check the actual research in the link its all explained very very carefully and in great detail in scientific terms. i note many people have not done it or found it incomprehensible to understand in the 30 seconds they took to scroll thru down a very very long page. then they spent more than 30 seconds posting saying its "bs". more than anecdotal evidence exist for your mosquito virus fever. a trial study in Nigeria for malaria found great succes. no electric shocks involved. about 0.025 amps is the starting point to electrocute a person. a small steady current in the range (0.0003 to 0.001 amps maximum) is passed thru electrodes attached to wrist pulse points. the current direction is reversed every few minutes. http://forum.aidworkers.net/messages/141/141.html?1105057020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 to make people aware that this non drug based method exists and for people to pursue it in further study etc.... I understand that; all you need to do is provide a link to the study and a breif description of what it entails. If you don't like people's responses, it's preferable that you ignore them rather than launching scathing attacks that exhibit exactly the same characteristics you were complaining about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 These test groups are far too small to be of any use. Theres also an unequal amount of people in the groups. This experiment is rubish at best. The only thing funnier then seeing how ridiculous they are' date=' is that people actually take them seriously. Some people's ignorance almost scares me.[/quote'] 4000 group of women too small? when doing election polls in the uk they frequently use groups of 1000 people only and they claim an accuracy of +/- 3%. of course they would have taken into account the slight inequality in the group sizes. this was more than 4000 women and the difference between bra bearers and non bra wearers was a staggering 12500%. a factor of 125 times there is no possible way you can explain the huge difference due to life styles,diet. life style and diet studies relating to cancer always tend to be in the range of 20% to 60% at most. this is 12500%. how do YOU explain this? "some peoples ignorance scares me". lol me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 the only thing even close to that idea is the use of Platinum based medication is some cancers. as for voltage use' date=' there was experimentation done in the late 70s early 80`s about the use of a low current passed between 2 broken bones to assist in the bridging of them, it worked in quite a few cases, I`ve heard nothing about it since though, si I assume the result were`nt worrth the effort? similar things where done in severed nerves, I`ve no data on that either. the only other time in medicine is ECT, and I don`t think that`s used now?[/quote'] http://www.bioelectric.ws/eng/electro-news.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esecallum Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 Ok I misread it... because I was laughing too much. And anyone who followed the link would have seen that. ... 40000 women in the uk get breast cancer and over 10000 die from it every year. we had no idea this was so amusing to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 There IS a vaccine for aids. It works on monkeys and the like, (sorry no link yet) But of course we live in this ****ing stupid world, and it is 'too dangerous', according to horizon. Its a weakened version of the Aids virus, and could save millions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2115217.stm If Edward Jenner had the vision why cannot the US government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 There IS a vaccine for aids. Think about that for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now