 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2007Officials say drug caused Nigeria polio
looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Uganda http://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_he_me/nigeria_polio_paradox Officials say drug caused Nigeria polio By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Fri Oct 5, 3:55 PM ET LONDON - A polio outbreak in Nigeria was caused by the vaccine designed to stop it, international health officials say, leaving at least 69 children paralyzed. ADVERTISEMENT It is a frightening paradox in a part of the world that already distrusts western vaccines, making it even tougher to stamp out age-old diseases. The outbreak was caused by the live polio virus that is used in vaccines given orally - the preferred method in developing countries because it is cheaper and doesn't require medical training to dispense. "This vaccine is the most effective tool we have against the virus, but it's like fighting fire with fire," said Olen Kew, a virologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC and the World Health Organization announced the cause of the polio outbreak last week, even though they knew about it last year. Outbreaks caused by the oral vaccine's live virus have happened before. But the continuing Nigerian outbreak is the biggest ever caused by the vaccine. It also follows a nearly yearlong boycott of the vaccine in Africa's most populous country because of unfounded fears the vaccine was a Western plot to sterilize Muslims. Officials now worry that the latest vaccine-caused Nigerian outbreak could trigger another vaccine scare. Experts say such outbreaks only happen when too few children are vaccinated. In northern Nigeria, only about 39 percent of children are fully protected against polio. The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus. Children who have been vaccinated excrete the virus, and in unsanitary conditions it can end up in the water supply, spreading to unvaccinated children. In rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a form that is dangerous enough to spark new outbreaks. In 2001, officials reported that 22 children were paralyzed from polio in the Dominican Republic and Haiti in this way. Subsequent vaccine-caused polio outbreaks have occurred in the Philippines, Madagascar, China and Indonesia. In the West, the polio vaccine is given as a shot and uses an inactivated virus, but that method is more expensive and requires training. In Nigeria, the outbreak comes "in the wake of all the other problems they've had in," said Dr. Donald A. Henderson, who led WHO's smallpox eradication campaign in the 1970s. In 2003, politicians in northern Nigeria canceled vaccination campaigns for nearly a year, claiming the vaccine was a Western plot to sterilize Muslims. That led to an explosion of polio, and the virus jumped to about two dozen countries. Now, health officials' decision to keep quiet about the cause of the outbreak for so long may look suspicious. Dr. David Heymann, WHO's top polio official, said that because the organization considered the outbreak to be a problem for scientists and not something that would change global vaccination practices, they thought it was was unnecessary to immediately share publicly. CDC's Kew added: "The people who are against immunization may seize on anything that could strengthen their position, even if it's scientifically untenable." Rumors are still rife among Nigerians that the vaccine is unsafe, and several religious leaders continue to lecture on its dangers. Another mass vaccine boycott could lead to further polio spread, derailing long-standing eradication efforts for good. Nigerian health officials contacted by The Associated Press declined to comment on the situation. "Convincing the Nigerians to take even more of this vaccine will be a tough sell," said Dr. Samuel Katz, an infectious diseases specialist at Duke University and co-inventor of the measles vaccine. More than 10 billion polio doses have been given to children worldwide, and the vaccine has been credited with cutting polio incidence by more than 99 percent since 1988. Far more children are paralyzed by the wild polio virus than the virus spread by the oral vaccine. But no vaccine is risk-free. WHO said that changing the vaccination strategy is unnecessary. "It would be nice if we had a more stable oral polio vaccine, but that's not the way it is today," Heymann said. "We will continue working the way we have been working because we don't want children to be paralyzed anywhere." Hmm, well, maybe a closer look at the environmental conditions when deciding where to give it might, with hindsight, have been a good thing to do. If there is a risk of infection via water supply, surely this should have rung the alarm bells and maybe in those areas, the more costly approach adopted. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Uganda > http://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > it is today," Heymann said. "We will continue working the way we have been > working because we don't want children to be paralyzed anywhere." Brian Gaff wrote... > Hmm, well, maybe a closer look at the environmental conditions when deciding > where to give it might, with hindsight, have been a good thing to do. If > there is a risk of infection via water supply, surely this should have rung > the alarm bells and maybe in those areas, the more costly approach adopted. Nigeria can afford the more costly approach. With all those billions of dollars sitting in unclaimed bank accounts, Nigeria has all the money it needs to combat polio and other infectious diseases without any Western assistance. > looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html > The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus. How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their kidneys? Children > who have been vaccinated excrete the virus, and in unsanitary conditions it > can end up in the water supply, spreading to unvaccinated children. Lemme think now, unvaccinated children take the oral polio vaccine and it is good for them. Other unvaccinated children get the oral polio vaccine from the water supply. These children do not become vaccinated but are health compromised. I have a hard time understanding that excuse. > In rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can > mutate into a form that is dangerous enough to spark new outbreaks. It seems to me that the original children being immunized were unimmunized. Does the virus not mutate within the guts of those children? Again, hard to understand. Any clarification would be appreciated. Vaccine logic is sometimes very hard to accept or understand. The logic is like entering a darkened room and continually running into a pole. The immunizers would issue you a helmet. The vitalistic people would turn on a light first. DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly Not a member of the church of modern medicine Vaccine logic is sometimes very hard to accept or understand. The logic is like entering a darkened room and continually running into a pole. The immunizers would issue you a helmet. The vitalistic people would turn on a light first. DrCee Nice one! > <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nice one! Would be more accurate to say that the anti-vaccine nutters deny there is pole there, and blame the helmet for the problem. Barry >> looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html >> The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of polio virus. > > How does one weaken the polio virus? Use sicker monkeys for their > kidneys? Lol, ignorance knows no bounds. The virus is grown, for multiple generations, using sub-optimal (i.e. not what you'd find in the human body) conditions. This causes mutations in the polio virus, as the virus is forced to evolve to survive in the new conditions. After sufficient generations these mutations allow the virus to survive in the culture conditions, but in evolving to survive those conditions the virus looses the ability to efficiently grow in humans. Pretty basic biology, the kind of stuff you should have been taught in high school. Bryan > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > >> looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Bryan Pretty basic biology my arse. Pretty basic brainwashing and indoctrination I would accept. First of all, how do you culture and grow a virus? What lab conditions are required? What medium does the vaccinator use? You claim sub-optimal conditions. What are they? How do you change the medium to a sub-optimal medium without killing the virus? How do the viral mutations occur? Sorry, but your concept is all crap. No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. Hear that? No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. The reason for that the so called virus only exists within a LIVING CELL. Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral particle exists. They are wrong, but that is what they believe. Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead cellular remains. A virus cannot exist outside of a living cell. Virology 101 will tell you that. You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the ability to efficiently grow in humans?" What the heck does that mean? Show us some proof of that conjecture. The virus is not a living organism. Such a dead piece of cellular debris cannot come back to life and infect or sicken anything. The only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry into the human body is by the hypodermic syringe. DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly Not a member of the church of modern medicine. >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >>>> looks like OPV genocide as Nkuba discovered in Ugandahttp://www.whale.to/a/nkuba_h.html [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > First of all, how do you culture and grow a virus? Easy. You take competent cells (fancy way of saying cells the virus infects) in a petri dish, add the virus, and put it in an incubator. The virus grows in the cells, and you can then isolate it at will. > What lab conditions are required? 37C/5%CO2 incubator, competent cells (exact type depends on the virus), and culture medium (usually supplemented with serum and antibiotics). > What medium does the vaccinator use? Depends on the cell type under culture. Commonly used ones are M199, and RPMI. But there is also DMEM, API, and a whole bunnch of others. > You claim sub-optimal > conditions. What are they? Usually lower temperature - 20-25C. > How do you change the medium to a sub-optimal medium without killing > the virus? Viruses are non-living, therefore you cannot "kill" them. So long as the cells are competent, and the cells can survive the culture condition, the virus can grow in them. > How do the viral mutations occur? Same way all mutations occur - through replication errors and environmental factors. > Sorry, but your concept is all crap. No, its basic science - the kind we have summer students in the lab do all the time. > No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. Hear that? of course not - viruses are not living things. But we do culture and purify viruses all the time - I've done that several times as part of my work. We even use mutated viruses as gene-delilvery veihicles, in which we insert a gene of interest into a replication-defective virus, and then use that virus to transport the gene into a cell, or animal, of interest. For something "imaginary", they do a pretty damned good job in the lab... > The reason for that the so called virus only exists within a LIVING > CELL. Actually, with only the rarest of exceptions most viruses have a lytic stage, wherein the virus deliberatly lyses a cell and releases its capsulated form into the environment. It is this form of the virus which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You can isolate pre-viral particles and genomes from infected cells. > Only within a living cell do scientists believe that a viral > particle exists. Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells demonstrates clearly that viruses are real. > They are wrong, but that is what they believe. They are right, and have over a centuries worth of data to support them. you have what - nothing but unfounded, uncited claims which you cannot back up. I know where I'll be placing my bets. > Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead > cellular remains. No. Its a pretty complex protein-nucleic acid-membrane complex with conserved structure and function. Nothing like it is produced by healthy cells, nor is the genetic information used to make the virus a component of any cells DNA. > A virus cannot exist outside of a living cell. Wrong. Viruses exist outside of living cells all the time. They just cannot replicate outside of a living cell. > Virology 101 will tell you that. Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real virology course on this planet will claim the things you have claimed. > You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to > efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the > ability to efficiently grow in humans?" What the heck does that > mean? Show us some proof of that conjecture. I thought it was obvious - the virus no longer replicates efficiently in our bodies, meaning it does not grow as quickly, or infect as many cells, as does wild-type virus. As such the disease it causes is non-existent, simply because the immune system generates a response that stops it long before it causes disease. One of those things you should have learned in virology 101. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSear ch=16973573&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel. Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSear ch=16254358&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel. Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSear ch=15831951&ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel .Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSear ch=15452230&ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel .Pubmed_RVDocSum Theres another 95 articles on the subject... > The virus is not a living organism. Such a dead piece of cellular > debris cannot come back to life and infect or sicken anything. Who ever claimed it did. All a virus does it transport genes from one cell to a next. It is those genes, which code for more viruses, which cause the problem. the viral particles themselves are nothing more then a container to keep those genes safe between victims. > The > only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry > into the human body is by the hypodermic syringe. No. The viral capsid contains multiple proteins whos job is to bind to the target cells, and mediate viral entry. Many viruses actually trick our own cells into taking them up, but mimiking things our cells would normally want to take in. This is a well established area of science, with thousands of scientific papers to its credit. Bryan > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > infects) in a petri dish, add the virus, and put it in an incubator. > The virus grows in the cells, and you can then isolate it at will. First you need "competent cells." This means cells that can act according to what you want to happen later. In the case of polio, maybe this is why monkey kidneys were chosen for the competent cells? You then add the virus and wait for the cells to uptake the particles and produce more of the desired viral particles. Of course, you must destroy the cells to then isolate the viral particles contained. You may be able to do this under laboratory conditions, but those conditions do not exist in the real world. Your are fooling yourself with laboratory tricks. > > What lab conditions are required? > > 37C/5%CO2 incubator, competent cells (exact type depends on the virus), > and culture medium (usually supplemented with serum and antibiotics). Let's see near body temp and 5%CO2. Do you find those conditions in a human body? Competent cells. Which human cells are competent? Then we would need a human body to use as a medium and ply it with serm and antibiotics to get real world polio. Don't think so. > > What medium does the vaccinator use? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the cells are competent, and the cells can survive the culture > condition, the virus can grow in them. Wait a minute here. "Viruses are non-living, therefore you cannot "kill" them. Why in the hell should I be afraid of them then? All they can do in the real world is to rot or be digested. > > How do the viral mutations occur? > > Same way all mutations occur - through replication errors and > environmental factors. Sounds like excuses to me to explain certain data. > > Sorry, but your concept is all crap. > > No, its basic science - the kind we have summer students in the lab do > all the time. Brainwashing and indoctrination can occur at any time. > > No scientist has ever seen nor cultured a live virus. Hear that? > > of course not - viruses are not living things. Well, we do agree here. A viral particle is not a living thing. > But we do culture and purify viruses all the time - I've done that > several times as part of my work. We even use mutated viruses as > gene-delilvery veihicles, in which we insert a gene of interest into a > replication-defective virus, and then use that virus to transport the > gene into a cell, or animal, of interest. More laboratory tricks that do not and cannot occur in the real world, thank goodness. > For something "imaginary", they do a pretty damned good job in the lab... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stage, wherein the virus deliberatly lyses a cell and releases its > capsulated form into the environment. Now you are telling me that a dead piece of organic material can perform some "action?" That the virus has a lytic stage? Don't think so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action. It is this form of the virus > which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You > can isolate pre-viral particles and genomes from infected cells. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells > demonstrates clearly that viruses are real. Cells can excrete and must excrete to maintain life. Cell sh.t may contain dead particles but it is still sh.t. > > They are wrong, but that is what they believe. > > They are right, and have over a centuries worth of data to support them. > you have what - nothing but unfounded, uncited claims which you cannot > back up. I know where I'll be placing my bets. Your cannot have centuries worth of data to support the claim. The electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in the 1930s. The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900. The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many times. However, it is unlikely that you have ever been exposed to the truth.> > > Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead > > cellular remains. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Wrong. Viruses exist outside of living cells all the time. They just > cannot replicate outside of a living cell. You said previously that viral particles outside the cell were non- living, therefore dead. > > Virology 101 will tell you that. > > Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I > can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real virology course on > this planet will claim the things you have claimed. I would agree with that. You cannot deceive and con students properly by confusing them with the truth. You must teach only what the medical monopoly will allow or lose your position and reputation. > > You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to > > efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > our bodies, meaning it does not grow as quickly, or infect as many > cells, as does wild-type virus. You claim it, but where is the proof? How does the wild-type get past our digestive system, our absorption system, our immune system, and the liver to do its dastardly deed? As such the disease it causes is > non-existent, simply because the immune system generates a response that > stops it long before it causes disease. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cause the problem. the viral particles themselves are nothing more then > a container to keep those genes safe between victims. If this were true or possible those eating carrots would take on the characteristics of a carrot. Those eating any food, containg DNA and viral particles would take on the characteristics of the food eaten. As I said, these things cannot and do happen in the real world. You have absolutely no scientific proof of what you are claiming. It is merely an excuse, a rationale, to support your contentions. > > The > > only way such a piece of dead organic material could ever gain entry [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > normally want to take in. This is a well established area of science, > with thousands of scientific papers to its credit. Only in the laboratory. In the real would the suckers would be digested, destroyed, then either aborbed as food or excreted. Your lab data proves why everything is digested and reduced to its elemental particles prior to absorbtion and use as new building material for the body. Eaten protein is reduced to the elemental proteins, absorbed, and then converted back into human protein. This happens with every type of food substance. It the body did not do it this way, your laboratory tricks could kick in as seen in the lab. > Bryan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - My credentials have been posted as well. DrCee. BS, MS, PhD, PhD. Not a member of the medical monopoly Not a member of the church of modern medicine. >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >>>> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > First you need "competent cells." This means cells that can act > according to what you want to happen later. No, it means cells which have the necessary surface receptors for the virus to enter the cell. > In the case of polio, > maybe this is why monkey kidneys were chosen for the competent cells? Or human, they work as well. > You then add the virus and wait for the cells to uptake the particles > and produce more of the desired viral particles. Of course, you must > destroy the cells to then isolate the viral particles contained. Nope. The viral particles are released into solution. We actually go through great lengths to not lyse (breakup) the cells we use to grow the virus, as that makes isolation difficult (you end up having to separate a lot of cellular crap from the virus, instead of just media components). > You may be able to do this under laboratory conditions, but those > conditions do not exist in the real world. Your are fooling yourself [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Let's see near body temp and 5%CO2. Do you find those conditions in a > human body? Yes. CO2 tentions are around 5% is properly oxygenated tissues, and the body runs at 37C unless something is seriously wrong. > Competent cells. Which human cells are competent? Depends on the virus. > Then we would need a human body to use as a medium and ply it with > serm and antibiotics to get real world polio. Nope. Polio happens all the time without human intervention. > Don't think so. >>> What medium does the vaccinator use? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wait a minute here. "Viruses are non-living, therefore you cannot > "kill" them. Why in the hell should I be afraid of them then? Because they are capable of taking over your own cells, and utilizing your cells biochemical processes to make copies of itself. In doing so they cause tissue damage, disease, and possibly death. > All > they can do in the real world is to rot or be digested. Nope. The genes that they carry can be identified by your bodies gene-processing enzymes, and thus be expressed, causing disease. >>> How do the viral mutations occur? >> Same way all mutations occur - through replication errors and >> environmental factors. > > Sounds like excuses to me to explain certain data. Its reality. All supported by numerous scientific studies. >>> Sorry, but your concept is all crap. >> No, its basic science - the kind we have summer students in the lab do [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > More laboratory tricks that do not and cannot occur in the real world, > thank goodness. Nope, its using a virus as a tool. the source of those vectors are natural viruses - we simply alter them to eliminate their infectivity. >> For something "imaginary", they do a pretty damned good job in the lab... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > perform some "action?" That the virus has a lytic stage? Don't think > so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action. It is not dead - it is non-living. Lots of non-living things preform actions - cars, computers, microwaves... > It is this form of the virus >> which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cells can excrete and must excrete to maintain life. Cell sh.t may > contain dead particles but it is still sh.t. But cells secrete single molecules, not large complexes like viruses. Viruses have specialized escape mechanisms which are not a normal part of how cell works. >>> They are wrong, but that is what they believe. >> They are right, and have over a centuries worth of data to support them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in > the 1930s. Actually, the first viral particles were observed by John Buist in 1886. He isolated and viewed small pox viruses through a light microscope. That's right - no electron microscope needed - many viruses are large enough to be seen with conventional light microscopy. Pox viruses being among the biggest. > The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900. Hardly, it was proposed in the 1800's, and was well accepted within a decade or so after that. > The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many > times. > No, it hasn't. And I challenge you to provide a link to a single scientific study which says otherwise. > However, it is unlikely that you have ever been exposed to the > truth.> I doubt the truth has ever touched your brain. >>> Outside of the cell, the viral particle is just a piece of dead >>> cellular remains. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You said previously that viral particles outside the cell were non- > living, therefore dead. Non-living does not equal dead. Dead is something that was living, then died. Non-living specifically refers to something that was not alive. >>> Virology 101 will tell you that. >> Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > by confusing them with the truth. You must teach only what the > medical monopoly will allow or lose your position and reputation. Lol, here we go - the conspiracy angle. Cannot deal with the facts, so all of the facts must therefore be a product of some vast conspiracy involving millions of people world-wide. Maybe there's an alien or two in there as well? Or maybe its your beliefs which are faulty - after all, you've been 100% unable to provide a single citation to prove that even one thing you've said is true. Strange isn't it - that I can support my claims with outside citations, while you can do nothing more then make fabulous claims, and insult me. >>> You go on to then claim that the virus loses the ability to >>> efficiently grow in humans. What a load of more crap. "Loses the [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Not a member of the medical monopoly > Not a member of the church of modern medicine. > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > Because they are capable of taking over your own cells, and utilizing > your cells biochemical processes to make copies of itself. In doing so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nope. The genes that they carry can be identified by your bodies > gene-processing enzymes, and thus be expressed, causing disease. I see this as one of the biggest problems with the viral part of the germ theory. You do not and cannot explain with valid data where these killer viruses hideout waiting to attack an unwary human. You further cannot show me any documented evidence whereby these dead viral particles can evade the human defense system of strong acid, digestion, mucous linings, immune system, protein typing, etc. to gain entry to any living organism. Living organisms eat DNA and your proposed viral particles all the time. We may even breathe them and drink them, but the viral particles have no means to alter our genes. Generally we call the material food. Eating the flesh, the DNA, the viral particles found in the cow, do not convert our genes to bovine genes. In the same way that the oncogene theory of cancer was debunked, the viral theory of disease is false. > Its reality. All supported by numerous scientific studies. Quite so. All psuedo scientific and not real world. Feed your viral particles to animals and what are the results? Does it take only one viral particle or millions of the little beasties to enter the body and cause harm? ? Don't think > > so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action. > > It is not dead - it is non-living. Lots of non-living things preform > actions - cars, computers, microwaves... Hardly a reasonable comparison. Do cars enter trucks and have them produce cars via their genes? Do computers reproduce themselves? > > It is this form of the virus > >> which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> Hardly. The fact we can isolate viral particles outside of cells > >> demonstrates clearly that viruses are real. This proves only that viral particles may exist outside of cells before they rot by bacterial action. Where do you find these dead critters? On our tables, our hands, toilet seats? Where are they outside of the lab? > > Your cannot have centuries worth of data to support the claim. The > > electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in > > the 1930s. > > Actually, the first viral particles were observed by John Buist in 1886. > He isolated and viewed small pox viruses through a light microscope. That is a falsehood. People of that era called things whatever they chose. The concept of the day was the filterests versus the non- filterests. Bacteria can be collected on a filter. There was something in some fluids that had enzymatic activity that could not be filtered out. If there were viral particles, they had to be in the non-filterable part of the experimental fluid. Viral particles are too small to be seen with a light microscope. The concept was not validated until the electron microscope came into being. > That's right - no electron microscope needed - many viruses are large > enough to be seen with conventional light microscopy. Pox viruses being > among the biggest. You are then greatly mislead if you believe that. > > The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900. > > Hardly, it was proposed in the 1800's, and was well accepted within a > decade or so after that. Another falsehood. The germ theory did not come into promenince until the work of Pasteur, during the late 1800s. > > The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many > > times. > > > No, it hasn't. And I challenge you to provide a link to a single > scientific study which says otherwise. Try reading the scientifically published work of A. Bechamp, PhD, MD. You will find that he destroyed the germ theory of disease. He proved that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow with work published in 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and doctors have to say on the subject. > >>> Virology 101 will tell you that. > >> Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > involving millions of people world-wide. Maybe there's an alien or two > in there as well? Unfortunately the medical monopoly exists. You are a beneficiary of that monopoly. I was also at one time. The conspiracy of the medical monopoly is well documented and no longer well hidden. Try reading some of that literature. The germ, viral, retro viral, prion, etc, etc, theory of disease is false. That is why we have so much sickness and disease in America. America is being banckrupted morally and financially by those who profit so greatly by this lie. DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly Not a member of the church of modern medicine >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > digestion, mucous linings, immune system, protein typing, etc. to gain > entry to any living organism. I provided links which did exactly that. You dishonestly cut them out of your reply, but that doesn't change the fact that they were posted. And the handful of papers I posted is just the tip of the iceberg - there are thousands of scientific papers which cover this sort of material for a whole host of viruses. Ignoring the evidence doesn't magically make it disappear. > Living organisms eat DNA and your proposed viral particles all the > time. We may even breathe them and drink them, but the viral [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Quite so. All psuedo scientific and not real world. Feed your viral > particles to animals and what are the results? Depends on the virus. If the virus is capable of infecting that animal, the animal gets sick. If the virus cannot infect that animal then nothing happens. > Does it take only one > viral particle or millions of the little beasties to enter the body > and cause harm? It takes only one to start an infection. > ? Don't think >>> so. The thing is dead. It is incapable of any action. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hardly a reasonable comparison. Do cars enter trucks and have them > produce cars via their genes? No, but cars are recycled to make more cars. > Do computers reproduce themselves? More or less. computers are used to design computers, control the manufacturing process, etc. >>> It is this form of the virus >>>> which is contagious, and this form of the virus is what we isolate. You [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > critters? On our tables, our hands, toilet seats? Where are they > outside of the lab? In the air, the water, the soil, and on solid surfaces. >>> Your cannot have centuries worth of data to support the claim. The >>> electron microscope and the viral theory of disease came into being in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is a falsehood. People of that era called things whatever they > chose. Hardly, it is a well recorded historical fact that can be easily verified through a 2sec google search, or reading an encyclopedia. > The concept of the day was the filterests versus the non- > filterests. Yep. And guess where John Buist found his "elemental particles" as he named them - in filtered lymph. Later analysis of his slides (after he died) confirmed that he was looming at smallpox virions. > Bacteria can be collected on a filter. There was > something in some fluids that had enzymatic activity that could not be > filtered out. If there were viral particles, they had to be in the > non-filterable part of the experimental fluid. Which, strangely enough, is exactly where Buist found them... > Viral particles are > too small to be seen with a light microscope. Wrong. Light microscopes can resolve down to ~200nm. Viruses range from 5nm to 14,000nm, meaning that the larger viruses are easily resolved on a light microscope. Smallpox viruses are 260x150nm; which makes them detectable by light microscopy, although you cannot get a lot of detail. > The concept was not > validated until the electron microscope came into being. Hardly. Viruses had been resolved via microscopy, their size determined accurately used more advanced filtration, and they had been shown to fulfill Koch's postulates long before EM was invented. >> That's right - no electron microscope needed - many viruses are large >> enough to be seen with conventional light microscopy. Pox viruses being >> among the biggest. > > You are then greatly mislead if you believe that. LOL, I use microscopes on a daily basis. Which means I know exactly what you can, and cannot see from first hand experience. So I know, based on my own work, that you have no idea what you are talking about. >>> The germ theory only came into prominence around 1900. >> Hardly, it was proposed in the 1800's, and was well accepted within a >> decade or so after that. > > Another falsehood. The germ theory did not come into promenince until > the work of Pasteur, during the late 1800s. Where was I falce - I said the 1800's, which is exactly when pasteur did his work. Likewise, his work was broadly accepted within a decade after its publication, also in the 1800's. One has to wonder just how smart you are - calling me a liar when the evidence which shows otherwise is located 2 lines up in your post... >>> The germ theory of disease has been scientifically disproven many >>> times. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Try reading the scientifically published work of A. Bechamp, PhD, MD. > You will find that he destroyed the germ theory of disease. A search for "Bechamp A" on pubmed brings up ZERO hits. Guess we now just how many scientific publications he made... > He proved > that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow > with work published in 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Way to join the modern era. Its funny that you so readily dismiss the work o virologists from that time, while claiming that the work of microbiologists during that time trumps everything done since. > You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the > Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and > doctors have to say on the subject. LOL, you think Orthopathy is real. That's fresh. The thing that's always made me shake my head about orthopathy is how do they explain that humans who live in a more natural state live shorter lives, filled with more disease, then do those of us who use modern medicine and live in developed nations. Pretty big hole in their thoery - if they were even close to being right we should see the exact opposite trends (in terms of life expectancy) in the world then we see today. >>>>> Virology 101 will tell you that. >>>> Having taught lectures in a course on immunity and infectious disease, I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Unfortunately the medical monopoly exists. Really? If so, then why are there multiple drug companies - hardly an monopoly. Or for that matter, multiple medical associations - also hardly a monopoly. > You are a beneficiary of > that monopoly. Yep, healthy and happy thanx to vaccination. > I was also at one time. The conspiracy of the medical > monopoly is well documented and no longer well hidden. Try reading > some of that literature. I have. It reads a lot like an x-files script... > The germ, viral, retro viral, prion, etc, etc, theory of disease is > false. Despite the millions of scientific articles which show otherwise. Right. Next thing you'll be telling me its turtles all the way down. And no, I don't expect you to understand that reference, but it is quite humorous if you read the same childhood books I did... > That is why we have so much sickness and disease in America. Yeah, its horrible living in nations with so much TB, polio, mumps, measles, rubella, cholera, malaria, and yellow fever. Oh, wait...those diseases are now so rare as to be almost never seen by doctors anymore. Bryan > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > > Try reading the scientifically published work of A. Bechamp, PhD, MD. > > You will find that he destroyed the germ theory of disease. > > A search for "Bechamp A" on pubmed brings up ZERO hits. Guess we now > just how many scientific publications he made... ROTFLMAO. Try doing some real literature searches. Go back to when the scientists were researching and arguing about bacteria and disease. Go to Comp. Rendus. You will find A. Bechamp listed and his many papers. If you read his biography, Bechamp or Pasteur...A Lost Chapter in the history of Biology you will learn more. ( try amazon.com, not pubmed) There is another book, Pasteur Plageurist or something ( cannot recall the book title or author ) which has some sites in it which are helpful. What the heck does zero hits on pubmed mean? Only that you can only accept what the medical monopoly has spoon fed you, and you can only teach that which guarentees your job and salary. How far back does pubmed go? Not far enough to learn the truth. > > He proved > > that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > work o virologists from that time, while claiming that the work of > microbiologists during that time trumps everything done since. There were no virologists at that time. The virus was not accepted until circa 1940. > > You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the > > Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with more disease, then do those of us who use modern medicine and live > in developed nations. And just what do you know of Orthopathy? You seem ignorant of every concept. > Pretty big hole in their thoery - if they were even close to being right > we should see the exact opposite trends (in terms of life expectancy) in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > monopoly. Or for that matter, multiple medical associations - also > hardly a monopoly. Well, you could hardly expect to hide a monopoly if you had only one pharmceutical company, now could we? Seems to me the multiple medical associations you refer to are all ALLOPATHIC, except for the alternative ones ostopathic, chiropractic, etc. > > You are a beneficiary of > > that monopoly. > > Yep, healthy and happy thanx to vaccination. Yep, dumb, stupid, and proud of it as well. > > I was also at one time. The conspiracy of the medical > > monopoly is well documented and no longer well hidden. Try reading [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Oh, wait...those diseases are now so rare as to be almost never seen by > doctors anymore. Isn't it amazing what better sanitation, better food, and less stress can do for the human? > Bryan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - DrCee >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > something ( cannot recall the book title or author ) which has some > sites in it which are helpful. So what you're saying is that we should be trusting the work of someone who died before we even knew DNA existed, or for that matter even the basic biology of bacteria? Thats pretty lame - why don't we just go for gold and use phrenology then? Its about as up-to-date and current. And I cannot help but notice the irony that you seem to think someone from the 1800's is good, while at the same time dismissing the work of everyone else from that period... > What the heck does zero hits on pubmed mean? Wow, for someone who claims he's got a PhD, and claims to have been a part of modern medicine, you sure are pretty dumb when it comes to medical stuff. Pubmed is the major (some would argue only) indexing service for biomedical articles. Not knowing what pubmed is in the medical field would be akin to not knowing what the Internet is in the computer field. > Only that you can only > accept what the medical monopoly has spoon fed you, and you can only > teach that which guarentees your job and salary. LOL. My teaching is not part of my salary; only my research counts. I teach purely out of interest, its not a job requirement. > How far back does > pubmed go? > Depends. Comprehensive coverage goes back to the 1950's, but major journals go back much farther - Science to 1880, Royal Society to 1890, etc. > Not far enough to learn the truth. Considering that major journals are covered back to the beginnings of modern biological science, it goes back plenty far. >>> He proved >>> that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There were no virologists at that time. The virus was not accepted > until circa 1940. You are wrong, plain and simple. People studied viruses as far back as the 1870's. At the time they didn't know the difference between virus and bacteria, but it doesn't change the simple fact taht they were studying them. >>> You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the >>> Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And just what do you know of Orthopathy? You seem ignorant of every > concept. Enough to know its full of sh.t. "Natural hygiene" is little more then a scam perpetuated to separate the gullible from their money. And, having had 2 of my volunteers for an old HIV project undergo care by a "professional practitioner", and rapidly die after doing so, I know exactly how well it works at controlling disease. >> Pretty big hole in their thoery - if they were even close to being right >> we should see the exact opposite trends (in terms of life expectancy) in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Well, you could hardly expect to hide a monopoly if you had only one > pharmceutical company, now could we? Back to the conspiracy again. You are aware that feelings of persecution, and paranoia about conspiracies, are a sign of metal disorders... > Seems to me the multiple medical associations you refer to are all > ALLOPATHIC, Hardly. Allopathy, as the term was originally coined, dos not exist. Modern medicine is evidence-based medicine, which means that we prove something works before using it as a part of a medical treatment. You konw, the stuff you're guys specifically avoid doing, as having to prove their wild claims would be near-impossible. To quote: "Although policy makers, social scientists, and others often refer to the MD profession as allopathic, this term is actually an historical artifact that does not reflect any body of beliefs shared by the members of this profession. For more than 150 years, the American Medical Association has pointedly rejected the adoption of any philosophical belief system governing health and disease and has argued that the profession's approach to medicine is based solely on scientific evidence. – Norman Gevitz, PhD. " > >>> You are a beneficiary of >>> that monopoly. >> Yep, healthy and happy thanx to vaccination. > > Yep, dumb, stupid, and proud of it as well. Taken that this coming from a "medical expert" who didn't know what pubmed was I think we can safely ignore the comment. >>> I was also at one time. The conspiracy of the medical >>> monopoly is well documented and no longer well hidden. Try reading [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Isn't it amazing what better sanitation, better food, and less stress > can do for the human? If only it were that simple. Polio is a great example - prevalent and endemic in Canada right up until mass-vaccination was introduced. And over the course of our 5-year mass vaccination program polio went from around 3000 cases per year to less then 9 per year. Fatalities went from an average of 0.75/100,000 per year to 0 over 45 years. Now you cannot honestly believe that sanitation, food quality, and stress changed that much between 1960 and 1965. In fact we can state categorically that those factors didn't change at all during that period. http://www.healthheritageresearch.com/ConqueringtheCrippler_e.pdf http://www.healthheritageresearch.com/MCPlagueTable3.html http://www.healthheritageresearch.com/MCPlagueTable2.html Bryan > So what you're saying is that we should be trusting the work of someone > who died before we even knew DNA existed, or for that matter even the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the 1800's is good, while at the same time dismissing the work of everyone > else from that period... anyone can see bechamp was right http://www.whale.to/v/germ.htm but allopathy lives off pasteur germ theory http://www.whale.to/v/pasteur.html and he was a fraud and plagarised bechamp http://www.whale.to/v/bechamp1.html which tells a story "Like Bechamp and Rife before him, Gaston states unequivocally, "germs are not the cause of, but the result of, disease". http://www.whale.to/v/disease3.html vaccination would go up in smoke if people knew that >> So what you're saying is that we should be trusting the work of someone >> who died before we even knew DNA existed, or for that matter even the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >anyone can see bechamp was right http://www.whale.to/v/germ.htm I read the page. It has a bunch of competing claims and no evidence. >but allopathy lives off pasteur germ theory >http://www.whale.to/v/pasteur.html > >and he was a fraud and plagarised bechamp >http://www.whale.to/v/bechamp1.html which tells a story Largely in French, thus not doing non-French speakers much good. >"Like Bechamp and Rife before him, Gaston states unequivocally, "germs are >not the cause of, but the result of, disease". >http://www.whale.to/v/disease3.html If the germs are eating up the supposed toxins, then killing them off with antibiotics would make you sicker. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > basic biology of bacteria? Thats pretty lame - why don't we just go for > gold and use phrenology then? Its about as up-to-date and current. What I am saying is that once the truth has been reported we should not dismiss it out of hand as being out of date. I doubt that the truth ever goes out of date. It can, however, be hidden and suppress by those who wish to profit from that act. Since you are such a great researcher find us some papers that refute the truths that Bechamp reported in Comp. Rendus and at the French Medical Society. > And I cannot help but notice the irony that you seem to think someone > from the 1800's is good, while at the same time dismissing the work of > everyone else from that period... I dismiss only that which is false and fraudulent. > Depends. Comprehensive coverage goes back to the 1950's, but major > journals go back much farther - Science to 1880, Royal Society to 1890, etc. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Considering that major journals are covered back to the beginnings of > modern biological science, it goes back plenty far. Do you really think that pubmed covers the entire history of medicine and biology? The French and the German sites are missing. > >>> He proved > >>> that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow > >>> with work published in 1914 in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. > >> Way to join the modern era. Its funny that you so readily dismiss the > >> work o virologists from that time, while claiming that the work of > >> microbiologists during that time trumps everything done since. I notice you did not comment on these major concepts. Monomorphism vs pleomorphism? Where do you stand? Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph germs into Strep and vice-versa. That does destroy monomorphism, doesn't it? > >>> You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the > >>> Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And just what do you know of Orthopathy? You seem ignorant of every > > concept. Well, just what is your knowledge of Natural hygiene? Provide some details. > Back to the conspiracy again. You are aware that feelings of > persecution, and paranoia about conspiracies, are a sign of metal > disorders... I presume you ment mental. Yet, in today's world, there are many metal disorders like autism and alzheimer's. > > Seems to me the multiple medical associations you refer to are all > > ALLOPATHIC, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > konw, the stuff you're guys specifically avoid doing, as having to prove > their wild claims would be near-impossible. LOL. Allopathy does not exist. Only if you have your head up your arse. Modern medicine is evidence-based? Nope. It ignores the evidence. It does trumpet one lab study after another but totally refuses to look in the real world to see what the evidence of their actions really are. Look at the results of your evidence. Look at the number of court cases. Look at the number of maimed and dead humans. You can keep your evidence, I'll take the truth every time. It is the alternative folks that are evidence based. Over thousands of years they have observed what works and what does not. Based upon that evidence, and not some bogus lab study, they have developed a valid course of action. > >>> The germ, viral, retro viral, prion, etc, etc, theory of disease is > >>> false. > >> Despite the millions of scientific articles which show otherwise. Hardly valid. There are no, zero, zilch studies that show the germ theory of disease is valid. You are proposing a myth. How is your reading going? Bechamp or Pasteur. A Lost chapter in the History of Biology. E. Douglas Hume. Pasteur. Plagiarist. Impostor! The Germ Theory EXPLODED! R. B. Pearson this one has some nice cites in it. The Blood and its third anatomical element. A. Bechamp The truth exists. The internet may be the means to uncover it and stop the landslide of lies emanating from our universities. DrCee Not a member of the church of modern medicine Not a member of the medical monopoly >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >>>> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > not dismiss it > out of hand as being out of date. No, we shouldn't. But in the case of Bechamp's work, it was found to be wrong. And once something is found to be wrong we should disregard it. especially when there is over 100 years of data showing just how wrong it is. > I doubt that the truth ever goes > out of date. No, but incorrect data tends to be revealed over time - just like Bechamp's work. Just another scientific theory which couldn't stand the weight of evidence. The history of science is filled with those. > It can, > however, be hidden and suppress by those who wish to profit from that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that Bechamp reported in Comp. Rendus and at the French Medical > Society. Umm, the entire medical literature from about 1930 to today pretty much refutes his claims. The very fact that no one has been able to demonstrate pleomorphism (in the context Bechamp uses it) amoung bacteria pretty much eliminates the theory. Likewise, disease-causing bacteria are simply not found in people who are healthy - their DNA, proteins and other biomarkes simply are not found. Which pretty much eliminates the pleomorphist view. >> And I cannot help but notice the irony that you seem to think someone >> from the 1800's is good, while at the same time dismissing the work of >> everyone else from that period... > > I dismiss only that which is false and fraudulent. No, you dismiss only that which disagrees with your preformed ideas. Just like a religious fundamentalist. >> Depends. Comprehensive coverage goes back to the 1950's, but major >> journals go back much farther - Science to 1880, Royal Society to 1890, etc. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you really think that pubmed covers the entire history of medicine > and biology? Did you miss there "modern" part of that sentence? Biology and medicine have only been conducted as a science (i.e. using scientific methodology and standards) since the early-to-mid 1800's. They really didn't become full-fledge sciences until near the end of the 1800's, when the scientific method finally became the accepted method of research in both fields (in medicine this didn't take place until the early 1900's). So yes, pubmed covers pretty much everything of significance. > The French and the German sites are missing. Many articles, in multiple languages, are available. >>>>> He proved >>>>> that bacteria are pleomorphic and not monomorphic. So did Rosenow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I notice you did not comment on these major concepts. > Monomorphism vs pleomorphism? Where do you stand? Define waht you mean by pleomorphic. If you mean that some bacteria can change their shape, colony formation, etc, then yes, bacteria are pleomorphic. If you refer to Bechamps theory, wherein bacterial magically change their properties to cause disease, then no. What bacteria are/do is coded in their genes, and it is pretty obvious that most pathogens are not normal body flora, and instead represent outside infections. If Bechamp was right, the bacteria bearing the DNA of common pathogens would be isolated all the time from healthy people. They are not. Exactly as Pasture and Koch demonstrated. > Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph > germs > into Strep and vice-versa. That does destroy monomorphism, doesn't > it? If the experiment was valid, which it is not. Today we know that such a change would involved mass recoding of the bacteria's DNA, something which is simply not possible based on everything that we know about evolution, DNA processing, DNA replication, and gene formation. More likely then not he either: a) Mistook changes in colony morphology as an inter-species change. b) Had a streptococcus infect his culture plates c) Made a mistake Considering no one has ever replicated that result, you can be pretty sure its incorrect. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science. >>>>> You might also wish to spend a few years reading and researching the >>>>> Orthopathic theory of disease and all that those researchers and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Modern medicine is evidence-based? Nope. It ignores the evidence. Strange then, that all modern medical processes have been vetted through experimentation and observation. What experiments support your ideas? Wait, none, aside from a handful of papers published long before we understood the basic biochemical processes upon which life is based. > It does trumpet > one lab study after another but totally refuses to look in the real > world to see what > the evidence of their actions really are. Lol, so I guess all the clinical trials, epidemeological studies, retrospective studies, and studies of natural systems are just figments of the imagination. > Look at the results of your > evidence. They are pretty clear, > Look at > the number of court cases. Minuscule. *Billions* of doses of vaccines are administered every year, thousands of times that of other drugs are given each year. And there is what - a couple of handfuls of lawsuits. > Look at the number of maimed and dead > humans. Yep, far, far less then had medical sciences not intervened. > You can > keep your evidence, I'll take the truth every time. The truth is a foreign concept to you. And the fact you so easily dismiss science as fraud - even though it produced the computer you typed your message on, the clothing you wear, and the house you live in (i.e. every material aspect of modern society) - has not gone unnoticed. > It is the alternative folks that are evidence based. Oh really? Then why is it so difficult for anyone to actually prove that their treatments work? Why is it that of the thousands of alternative treatments run through double-blind clinical trials, less than *10* have been found to be efficacious. Why is it we see patients coming into the hospital needing granulomas excised, because some "alternative doctor" thought that injecting alo vera into their a.s would cure bowl cancer? And why did that same patient die of an easily treated cancer? > Over thousands > of years they have > observed what works and what does not. Strange then, that over those thousands of years they didn't manage to increase life expectancy. And yet, in just 200-ish years of modern science, and 150-ish years of modern medicine, we've managed to more then double it. And lets see, some "alternative" treatments that passed the test of time: Oral administration of metallic mercury for stomach ailments (China), Ephedra/ma huang (China), ayurvedic medicine which frequently contains mercury, lead or arsnic (India). And those from the two oldest "alternative medicine" communities on earth. And lets not forget the constant claims of miracle cures from the alt-med community - claims that they've yet to back up, prayer and faith "healing" (no evidence they work), purges (several recorded fatalities), special diets (often dangerous, several fatalities reported), herbal remedies (many deaths reported, few cases of confirmed efficacy). And then there is my "favorite" - the dozen or so "alt-med" patients which die in the hospital where I work - of easily treatable disease. If alt-med is so hot, then why can it not cure patients who are easily treated by conventional medicine? > Based upon that evidence, What evidence? Its ironic that you scream out against the use of minuscule amounts of mercury in modern medicine, while at the same time promoting a form of "medicine" which is known to use large quantities of mercury as a treatment. > and > not some > bogus lab study, Back to the conspiracy... > they have developed a valid course of action. Which doesn't work. Good course of action. Now tell me, if these old methods of medicine - so very popular in asia and india - are so good, then why do the people in those countries live shorter lives, experience more disease, have increased rates of childhood mortality, and experience generally poorer health? Based on your logic the worlds largest consumers of alt-med should see the most benefit. And yet, they don't. >>>>> The germ, viral, retro viral, prion, etc, etc, theory of disease is >>>>> false. >>>> Despite the millions of scientific articles which show otherwise. > > Hardly valid. Why am I not surprised that you'd dismiss those, without providing one piece of counter evidence. You see, that's why so many of you main-stream alt-med types are no taken seriously by the scientific and medcial communities - you fail to support your claims with *evidence*. It's not that we're opposed to your ideas - indeed, many modern treatments and drugs have their roots in classical medicine. All we want is evidence - i.e. a clinical trial, to demonstrate the efficacy of what you're proposing. That's it, simple as that. And I don't think we're asking much - just that you prove your claims using an actual trial, not just made-up claims. And yet, despite decades of requests from the medical community, the alternative medicine community has failed to preform even one study, to show what they claim is true. In fact, numerous alternative med organizations have directly refused to conduct such studies. Now, what would they be hiding? > There are no, zero, zilch studies that show the germ > theory of disease is valid. There are thousands - from the old works of Pasteur and Koch, to modern studies such as those investigating the source and pathogenesis of SARS. You just don't like them, so you pretend they don't exist. But just because you ignore them doesn't magically make them go away. > You are proposing a myth. No, I am proposing a model of infectious disease supported by over 100 years of research, supported by thousands of medical studies, laboratory experiments, and the monitoring of infections in the wild. > How is your reading going? > Bechamp or Pasteur. A Lost chapter in the History of Biology. E. > Douglas Hume. Pasteur. > Pasteur. Plagiarist. Impostor! The Germ Theory EXPLODED! R. B. > Pearson [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not a member of the church of modern medicine > Not a member of the medical monopoly I see you've clipped your claims to degrees - whats the matter, worried if you persist in that, that one of us will uncover your fraud? Why is it you've yet to answer my challenge, and prove you have those degrees? Bryan > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote > > Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Considering no one has ever replicated that result, you can be pretty > sure its incorrect. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science. If medicine is scientific, why was the work not checked by replication to verify it? If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid. Typical of modern day psuedo-scientists like you, if data comes up which does not meet your pre-concieved notion of what the results should be you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then publish it. Your a,b,c line of logic is crap in true scientific terms. Repeat the work. Are you qualified enough to repeat his work or not? Enough of the guesswork. Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid. DrCee Not a member of modern medicine. Not a member of the church of modern medicine. >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote >>> Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If medicine is scientific, why was the work not checked by replication > to verify it? Every time we culture Staph or Strep we are testing his experiment. If he were right we should see these spontaneous conversions all the time. We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to other forms of bacteria. > If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid. Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is wrong. Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep genomes show that it is wrong. Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write their entire genome when they convert from one form to another, and that the only convert when no one is looking. http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_aureus/ http://www.genome.ou.edu/strep.html http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_pyogenes/ > Typical of modern day psuedo-scientists like you, if data comes up > which does not meet your pre-concieved notion of what the results > should be This is your trick. Remeber - you've claimed multiple times that all biological science is invalid. Except, of course, for a handful of studies which agree with your predispositions. We don't believe in pleomorphic bacteria for the simple reason that we don't see them. A huge part of science is repeatability - if someone else cannot confirm what I see, then my observations are meaningless. And with only two exceptions, in over a century of bacterial culture and study, no evidence for pleomorphism has been found. > you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent > qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then > publish it. Your a,b,c line of logic is crap in true scientific terms. > > Repeat the work. Are you qualified enough to repeat his work or not? > Enough of the guesswork. You mean like how I repeat his work every time I culture Staph, and analyze the cultures for purity. > Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or > Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid. No one has replicated their work, making it dubiious. If they were correct then even by accident, polymorphy should have been observed by now. However, resent studies such as the genetic sequencing of the Staph and Strep genomes clearly demonstrate that they are completely separate organisms. Which completely disproves the polymorphic hypothesis. Bryan > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Every time we culture Staph or Strep we are testing his experiment. If > he were right we should see these spontaneous conversions all the time. That is false logic. You would assume contamination and start over. Secondly, you must alter the medium properly as Rosenow did to elicit the change. > We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood > of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for > nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to > other forms of bacteria. And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not? You have a lab. You have access to his paper in 1914. Repeat it. Then explain to us where he went wrong. > > If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid. > > Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is > wrong. Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we > show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep > genomes show that it is wrong. Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according to the stress of their environment. Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy cells in the lab provided you do the experiment correctly. Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit of information. > Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write > their entire genome when they convert from one form to another, and that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And with only two exceptions, in over a century of bacterial culture and > study, no evidence for pleomorphism has been found. False. Rosenow proved it as did Bechamp earlier. > > you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent > > qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No one has replicated their work, making it dubiious. No one has replicated their work, making it dubious? What a scientific load of crap. If they were > correct then even by accident, polymorphy should have been observed by > now. However, resent studies such as the genetic sequencing of the > Staph and Strep genomes clearly demonstrate that they are completely > separate organisms. Which completely disproves the polymorphic hypothesis. Doesn't prove anything except that you are very confused about what really goes on in the real world. Bacteria change form and function to suit their environment. Baceria also become antibiotic resistant, a poweful stress in their environment. Perhaps your genomes demonstrate how they do the impossible, impossible by your understanding anyway. BTW, Rosenow made these comments: He commented on the bacterial-genetic interface: the true cutting edge. He commented on the instability of bacterial types: dissociation and mutation He later commented on the contemporary dissociation/reversion and mutation of bacteria. Shakmon has a book wherein he presents many of Rosenow's insights and has a review of the fundamental and irrefutable concept of microbial variation, and how this phenomena and the associated works of Rosenow may resolve the modern confusion over the cause of a wide range of diseases. Any more comments on Rosenow. In addition, Rosenow knew of and worked with Royal Raymond Rife. Isn't that a hoot? DrCee Not a member of the church of modern medicine Not a member of the allopathic medical monopoly > Bryan- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - <drceephd@insightbb.com> wrote in message > Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according > to the stress of their > environment. Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy > cells in the lab provided > you do the experiment correctly. Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit > of information. Algore got one for not cutting his grass. >Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy >cells in the lab provided >you do the experiment correctly. Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit >of information. There's that lie about Otto Warburg again. http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2006/04april.htm#1cancer SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com http://www.worstpills.org/public/page.cfm?op_id=5 >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >>>> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That is false logic. You would assume contamination and start over. Never having had that particular problem, we can clearly state this wasn't the case. > Secondly, you must alter the medium properly as Rosenow did to elicit > the change. Right. >> We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood >> of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for >> nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to >> other forms of bacteria. > > And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not? Because he was wrong, and you cannot replicate something which is wrong. > You have a > lab. You have > access to his paper in 1914. Repeat it. Then explain to us where he > went wrong. Why waste my time? DNA sequencing alone demonstrates he was 100% wrong. Why waste the time showing it yet again? >>> If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid. >> Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to the stress of their > environment. True, but they do not change species. So while bacteria do change their phenotype, express new genes, etc, their underlying DNA code remains the same. In order to get pleomorphy, as you describe it, would require re-writing of the DNA code. This simply is not seen, nor does any mechanism exist by which it could occur. > Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy > cells in the lab provided > you do the experiment correctly. Through the artificial addition of tumor-suppressing genes. Not exactly a "natural" phenomena. > Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit No, he didn't. Warburgs prize was for discovering the oxidation/reduction metabolism which underlies our metabolism. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1931/warburg-bio.html Warburg did have a hypothesis as to the cause of cancer - that they were metabolizing glucose, not pyruvate, and that was the route cause of cancer. Based on what was known at the time - that tumors did metabolize more intensely than did normal cells - this was a logical conclusion. We now know his hypothesis was wrong, and what Warburg had observed was a response of cancer cells to anoxic conditions - a response normal cells can also undergo. > of information. >> Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > False. Rosenow proved it as did Bechamp earlier. No, they did not. You dishonestly snipped the DNA sequencing (again), but its pretty obvious to someone who even glances at the gene maps that Strep and Staph are completely different at the genetic level, and therefore are not pleomorphic versions of the same organism. >>> you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent >>> qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > in the real world. Bacteria change form and function to suit their > environment. But they do not re-write their genetic code. > Baceria also > become antibiotic resistant, Through gene transfer form resistant species, or through evolution of another biochemical pathway. These process have been observed in nature, and are well understood, and completely refute polymorphy. > a poweful stress in their environment. > Perhaps your genomes demonstrate > how they do the impossible, impossible by your understanding anyway. Actually, their genomes reveal to us exactly how they preform these tasks. And our observations of how these processes work completely refute polymorphy. bryan > drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >> nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to > >> other forms of bacteria. Out of curiousity, why in the heck would you culture staph on a weekly basis? Is there a commercial use for staph? > > And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not? > > Because he was wrong, and you cannot replicate something which is wrong. Totally bogus. A scientist would replicate the work to verify or deny it. If it is not repeatable, then it may well be bogus, our your ability is lacking, whichever. > > You have a > > lab. You have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why waste my time? DNA sequencing alone demonstrates he was 100% wrong. > Why waste the time showing it yet again? You must waste your time if you wish to claim to be a scientist. Attempting to repeat the work is the least that any reputable scientist would do. > >>> If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid. > >> Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is > >> wrong. Cite some of these thousands of experiments. I expect to see words such as "in refutation of" or some such words to indicate that the researchers have repeated and are refuting Rosenow's work. BTW, I checked Pubmed for Rosenow. He wrote over 300 scientific papers, yet I got 0 hits. Any idea why? Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we > >> show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep > >> genomes show that it is wrong. No it does not. Check Rosenow's work. > > Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according > > to the stress of their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > re-writing of the DNA code. This simply is not seen, nor does any > mechanism exist by which it could occur. What you mean is any mechanism which fits your concept of bacteria and viruses. > > Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy > > cells in the lab provided > > you do the experiment correctly. > > Through the artificial addition of tumor-suppressing genes. Not exactly > a "natural" phenomena. Sorry, the addition of tumor-suppressing genes is not needed. Human cells, when stressed, can convert to cancer cells and conduct life processes by anaerobic metabolism. Those same cancer cells, when allowed to convert, will convert to normal non-cancerous cells. This is what Warburg showed and is the basis for nearly all alt med success with cancer. > > Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit > > No, he didn't. Warburgs prize was for discovering the > oxidation/reduction metabolism which underlies our metabolism. What is the WARBURG OXYGEN apparatus, and what is it used for? I have a quote by Warbugh at a conference of Nobel prize winners concerning cancer. I will see if I can find it. He basically states that no other disease has been so well studied, and the cause and prevention well known, yet millions more must die before the truth will be allowed to be known. > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1931/warburg-bi... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > observed was a response of cancer cells to anoxic conditions - a > response normal cells can also undergo. Your knowledge is totally bogus and lacking here. > > of information. > >> Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Strep and Staph are completely different at the genetic level, and > therefore are not pleomorphic versions of the same organism. I repeat, Rosenow and Bechamp proved that bacteria were pleomorphic. > >>> you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent > >>> qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> You mean like how I repeat his work every time I culture Staph, and > >> analyze the cultures for purity. You are not repeating anything but arrogance. Repeat Rosenows work. I doubt you have the skill and ability to repeat Bechamp's research. > >>> Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or > >>> Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Through gene transfer form resistant species, or through evolution of > another biochemical pathway. What is the hell is "evolution of another biochemical pathway?" These process have been observed in > nature, and are well understood, and completely refute polymorphy. Disagree, pleomorphism is denied, yet well understood and commonly seen. > > a poweful stress in their environment. > > Perhaps your genomes demonstrate [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Show quoted text - DrCee Not a member of the medical monopoly Not a member of the church of modern medicine. >> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >>>> drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Out of curiousity, why in the heck would you culture staph on a weekly > basis? Is there a commercial use for staph? I'm involved in academic research, so no commercial sales are involved. I study immunity, and we use staph as an experimental model. The reason we use staph, and not some other infectious agent, is that staph is well characterized pathogen, and a common problem. And since I do experiments 4-5 times a week, I culture staph at least 1 time per week for those experiments. >>> And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not? >> Because he was wrong, and you cannot replicate something which is wrong. > > Totally bogus. A scientist would replicate the work to verify or deny > it. Since he published his work no one has replicated it. Genetic sequencing demonstrates quite clearly that he is wrong. Therefore, he is wrong and there is no longer any point in perusing his hypothesis. Under your logic we should continually try to reproduce erranous results millions of times over, just to make sure that they are actually wrong. This is not the way in which science in conducted. Rather, if we think something is wrong we look for additional evidence to support that conclusion. Genetic sequencing, for example, which clearly demonstrates that staph and strep are unique and separate organisms, and not a single pleomorphic organism as you propose. Based on that evidence there is no longer any point in trying to replicate the experiments that lead to the pelomorphy model, as that possibility is directly disproven through other techniques. > If it is not repeatable, then it may > well be bogus, our your ability is lacking, whichever. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You must waste your time if you wish to claim to be a scientist. No, I must not. Rather, I must critically analyze the data and make logical conlcusions based on those data. And the data are: 1) One report of pleomorphy 2) Tens of thousands of |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message