 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006Aneuploidy Theory of Cancer
Normal euploid human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Aneuploidy means the cell has an abnormal number of chromosomes, either too many or too few. All solid tumor cancer cells have an abnormal number of chromosomes, usually ranging from 60 to 90. Colon cancer cells contain an average of 79 chromosomes. Cells that have an abnormal number of chromosomes can become cancerous by constantly altering their number and composition in succeeding generations of cells until at some point, perhaps decades later, one of these genetically unbalanced cells turns malignant. And since aneuploidy is inherently unstable, cancer cells continually spawn new cells with differing numbers and assortments of chromosomes and therefore a unique genetic makeup (karyotype). This enables the cancer to survive when threatened by chemotherapy and radiation because a subpopulation of its cells becomes genetically resistant to these challenges. Donald Miller is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle. He is a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com full text: http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller18.html www.drdach.com Peter Duesberg (who should be lauded for his early criticism of the "HIV/AIDS" nonsense, has written recently about this. The problem is, how did the aneuploidy occur in the first place? Once it is there, that means the cells have be subjected to powerful stressors, such as constant free radical bombardment (often from lipid peroxidation reactions). The key is to stop the damage in the first place. You don't try to fix a car after it has been compressed into a small square of metal at the junk yard, and yet these people don't realize this, or they know that there is no money or accolades in talking about prevention. More significantly the profound disruption of chromosomes raises important questions about just how these cells can survive at all! It represents a fundamental challenge to our understanding of cell function. I've seen images of this and it don't make no sense. John. > Peter Duesberg (who should be lauded for his early criticism of the > "HIV/AIDS" nonsense, has written recently about this. The problem is, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they know that there is no money or accolades in talking about > prevention. >Peter Duesberg (who should be lauded for his early criticism of the >"HIV/AIDS" nonsense, has written recently about this. ... Well, that means it's probably a great big steaming pile of sh.t since he doesn't seem to recognize that infections can cause an immune response that do NOT result in "cure" or prevention of clinical sequelae. Not to mention that you and Dach also support the idea, meaning the "skeptometer" of any sane person should be on VERY high.... George M. Carter > Normal euploid human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Aneuploidy You are a net.kook who insists AIDS is caused by magic and not by HIV: why, then, should anyone give a sh.t about your opinions on cancer? Hello there ! Is Duesberg a "net kook" ? All I ask is for what I have taught students for years: 1. A formal hypothesis. 2. Supporting evidence, including a foundation experiment (which has yet to be conducted, more than 20 years later). 3. Proposals for vefication or refutation purposes. 4. Formal, moderated, academic-style debates with scientists like Duesberg, who have alternative explanations or criticisms. Do you realize that "HIV" has never been found as described textbooks in any human being? If it was doing damage, it would not only have to be found, but found in abundance. You will never find this in a person said to be "HIV infected." You, my friend, is the one engaging in magical thinking. As to the other poster: yes, the existing dogma does not explain how this can be. I suggest you read Gilbert Ling's works, as well as some others who came after him. >Hello there ! Is Duesberg a "net kook" ? Nope. But he is a kook with a hell of a lot of followers that will say HIV doesn't cause AIDS and then "HIV doesn't exist" in the same cognitively dissonant breath (where even Duesberg knows HIV exists; retrovirology was his specialty, not, however, immunology). Duesberg is a f.cking right-wing psycho crank. George M. Carter One thing any "dissident" is thankful for is not having Mr. Carter on their side. He appears to me to be mentally unbalanced, using obscentities when people ask basic scientific question. I will ask him once again: If blood (or tissue sample) is taken from someone who is said to be "HIV infected," will an abundance of particles that meet the textbook description of "HIV" ever be found under the electron microscope? How can you believe in a virus that cannot be found? Even if it were found, which it never will be, it could be an effect rather than a cause, my point being that there is basically nothing to "HIV/AIDS." It is a socially-constructed illusion. I could easily cause a condition matching descriptions of various "AIDS patients" if I were allowed to conduct properly controlled experiments. The scientific literature is abundant with explanations for these kinds of phenomena. If Mr.Carter wishes to volunteer to be a kind of "lab rat," I could give him an identical condition to "AIDS" (as defined in the USA) within a few years, with no possibility of "infection with HIV." In science, this is considered a direct refutation. Obviously, if people "uninfected with HIV" can be given "AIDS" by simply doing what "AIDS patients" often do, but without any possibility of "HIV infection," this means the "HIV/AIDS" claim is incorrect. However, to people like Mr. Carter, obscentities are satisfactory substitutes for scientific rigor. Then will you volunteer to be injectid with the hiv virus in test of these counter claims? > Then will you volunteer to be injected with the hiv virus in test of > these counter claims? The proposed experiment of injecting humans with HIV has already been done in a variation that satisfies his experimental protocol. Elite Controllers (subject of current Mass General Study) are already HIV positive, so no need to inject them. They never get AIDS and never take anti HIV drugs. http://www.massgeneral.org/aids/hiv_elite_controllers.asp The practicalities of your proposed unethical human experimentation would require IRB approval which has not been obtained. Thirdly, these types of experiments had been routinely done on chimps and primates at Yerkes, and discontinued because NO AIDS resulted from the HIV injections, and animal rights activists protested the experiments as unethical. Why would you consider an unethical experiment abandoned in chimps, to be an ethical in humans? Let's explore the outcome of your proposed experiment with a hypothetical case. Mr. Smith decides to agree with your proposed experiment and is injected with HIV positive blood obtained from the blood bank, from a unit of blood which was ordinarily destined for the garbage can. Mr. Smith has a mild viral illness about a week later, and about 6 weeks later has a blood test which shows him to be HIV positive, In other words, his body now manufactured antibodies to HIV (a biological process normally considered to confer immunity). As a result of his positive HIV test, his health insurance is cancelled. He is fired from his job and his wife divorces him. Other than that, things are pretty much normal. About 25 years later he has a heart attack and dies. Somebody mentions this little HIV study which everyone had forgotten about, calls the anonymous internet poster who proposed the study, to report that Mr. Smith never got AIDS. Our anonymous internet scientist then replies: Darn, Mr. Smith must have been one of those elite controllers. We should have used an average American, instead. www.drdach.com >> Then will you volunteer to be injected with the hiv virus in test of >> these counter claims? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >positive, so no need to inject them. They never get AIDS and never >take anti HIV drugs. Isn't it just terrific that ALL infections must be like this. If exposed to an infection, everyone always becomes productively infected and always gets sick. Isn't that right? Are REALLY an MD???? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.