UESP Forums

http://news.yahoo.com/man-cured-aids-fe ... ealth.html

Found as a rare mutation primarily in Caucasians ((White people)) an HIV resistant Blood type transfusion has cured a Man of Aids.

Out of thosaunds of umbilical cord blood tested from babies only about 100 carried this gene.

Your thoughts?

>yahoo news

Got any better news sources?

I thought it was nice of you to explain that caucasians are white people.

It's a true story, but it's also old: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html (that was back in 2008)

Now, girlfriend, here's the thing to consider when you find "scientific breakthroughs" in major news media. They often are simply the findings of one doctor or two doctors of a study that is either largely A: unempirical, B: non-peer reviewed, or C: it is a highly theoretical thing.

As Daendra pointed out, this news is old news. It's 2012, this was 2008. If this discover was big enough to say "Cured a man of AIDs," then, it would be a lot larger scale. There are lots of question to be considered when a scientific movement is being made, particularly with a major issue such as AIDs or HIV. Often, as you'd fine, news sources, particularly main stream sources, are sensationalized. "Man is cured of AIDs," "Earth-like planet found in star system." They serve attention-grabbers, but, they also are highly unscientific, misleading, or can be downright innaccurate.

That is what is happening here. One person, or, in fact, even a small handful, is not a large enough sample-size to draw conclusions. That's not how science works. That's not, especially, how medicine works. This "cure" is both old and a topic of sensationalism. Every week, there is a 'new' "cure for cancer," and every person goes crazy over it, but, then, they soon forget. Real cures take time, my friend: they require endless and rigorous testing and regiment in order to even be considered in many hospitals. These are peoples' lives here.

I'd like to use an example. If, say, I go out and say that a wire produces a magnetic field in 19th century Britain, I'd be laughed out of an credible scientific circle. That is conjecture: a claim for which I offer no proof or experimentation of. (Also, keep in mind, scientific experimentation requires several things, the ability to be repeated and peer-review are two of the most important characteristics) However, if I approach with a simple experiment and if I approach with papers and notes, carefully explaining the logic and the reasoning for this effect, I could be considered much more credible.

But even then, the process is slow. When Charles Darwin with his theory evolution, a scientific theory accepted in just about any real scientist, it took about several decades. Hell, there was even a supreme court case, the Scopes 'Monkey Trial,' 70 years after Darwin, evolution still had a huge opposition, even among certain scientists. The reason for this is that scientific study is rather slow.

A cure for AIDs, or HIV, or Cancer, or Alzheimers, etc. etc., has to be in years in the making. They aren't just discovered and, if this were to become a credible 'cure,' then, we wouldn't be seeing this cure until about 2020 in testing, and that is a generous guess.

Actually, I am pretty sure that the continuing opposition to Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution comes almost entirely from people disliking the implications, not because there's anything wrong with the science.

Rootmars wrote:I thought it was nice of you to explain that caucasians are white people.

Hey in my younger years I thought Caucasians were a type of asian people.

Deandra wrote:It's a true story, but it's also old: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html (that was back in 2008)

I have never read that before.

I guess it's interesting in the sense that it's interesting that you can patent any sort of quackery without evidence that it does what you say it does.

http://www.avert.org/cure-for-aids.htm

Deandra wrote:I guess it's interesting in the sense that it's interesting that you can patent any sort of quackery without evidence that it does what you say it does.

http://www.avert.org/cure-for-aids.htm

I know that, it would just be kind of cool that if we did find a cure to AIDS, it would be with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices. I mean, come one, that just SOUNDS like it'd work.

Combining the three posts above me we get:

Tetrasil (or Imusil) is a substance containing tetrasilver tetroxide. A patent held by Dr. Marvin S. Antelman claims that this simple chemical compound cures AIDS by “electrocuting” HIV. Dr. Antelman admits his approach to AIDS is “non-conventional” and he does not trust viral load tests: “Accordingly we have patients who display viral load reduction and those that do not who are nevertheless cured of AIDS”, he has said. Tetrasilver tetroxide is more commonly used for disinfecting swimming pools. After it was promoted as an AIDS cure in Zambia the government banned Tetrasil because it has no proven benefits for people living with HIV. In America it is illegal to promote Tetrasil for the treatment or prevention of any disease.

I don't deny that they all are failures, but I've always wondered how they've been banned. Plenty of other drugs are just as dangerous, yet are still widely available in hospitals around the world.

They're dangerous and ineffective. Why should you be allowed to sell people medicine that can only hurt them? If the stuff actually did what it was supposed to, then you could have a discussion about the pros and cons and whether the side effects are worse than whatever it is you're treating. But if you get nothing good and something clearly bad out of a "treatment" then it is not legal to market it as a treatment.

I'm not sure if I believe their accounts. It sounds very negative, but if there were no diseases, what would scientists be for?

Frost Mage wrote:I'm not sure if I believe their accounts. It sounds very negative, but if there were no diseases, what would scientists be for?

Way to miss the point.

Spiney wrote:

Frost Mage wrote:I'm not sure if I believe their accounts. It sounds very negative, but if there were no diseases, what would scientists be for?

Way to miss the point.

I understand the point, and that they've all be been proven "ineffective", hence the reason they've been banned, but like I said, I'm not so sure.

Sure about what?

They're bad, so they're banned.

There's nothing else to be sure about, unless you have some miracle medical knowledge you'd like to shed on us?

Spiney wrote:Sure about what?

They're bad, so they're banned.

There's nothing else to be sure about, unless you have some miracle medical knowledge you'd like to shed on us?

Neither of us is a scientist working in Kenya, so neither of us know for sure what the facts are. The difference between you and I is that you accept all of these "facts", and I question them. I'm not approving or denying any of this, but I just would like to learn more about it before I just accept all of this.

Except I read the whole thing in the patent and the page Deandra linked to see it utter bollocks.

Basically the treatment attempts to electrify the AIDs pathogen with the chemical tetrasilver tetroxide to allow a resurgence in white blood cells. Said chemical is also used in pool disinfectant and can't be controlled by any means. Though it's proven not to work by any means and could probably be harmful seeing as you're injecting people with pool disinfectant.

The thing I don't trust are the accounts of it not working, not the patent, or anything else.

Sure because what do you know above what medical doctors don't.

Frosty, your beliefs are quite common. Many people like the idea of a simple, cheap cure that is amazingly effective. Especially if you're the one stuck with a disease like AIDS, there is a lot of appeal to "cures" like tetrasil. The problem is that many people have taken these "cures," and ended up in much worse shape (thanks to both the side effects of what they were taking and the fact that they weren't taking the antiretrovirals that they actually needed to stay relatively healthy), which is why governments ban these things. People want to take them. They want to believe. It's just human nature. But the science isn't there, and it causes very real damage to people.

If you've decided that this is yet another conspiracy you want to believe, there's probably not much I can say to convince you. But I personally know many doctors and biologists, and there is no way that they wouldn't all LOVE to show that a simple cure like this actually helps people. Really, they are people just like you and me; some of them are very noble, others are in it more for the money and prestige, but they aren't all being forced to let millions of people suffer and die just because they're being controlled by Big Pharma.

If it's just a question that you don't understand how medical trials or the scientific method in general work, then that's a whole other discussion.

I have a friend who only trusts homeopathic treatments. I asked him one time what he thought homeopathic means. He said, "It means it's like a home remedy. Something natural that cures." He was speechless when I explained that homeopathic meant the drug is something that normally causes the condition.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there as to how medicine and the body really work.

Musicman247 wrote: He was speechless when I explained that homeopathic meant the drug is something that normally causes the condition.

There are a lot of misconceptions out there as to how medicine and the body really work.

And that in homeopathy, the more diluted a medicine is the more potent, even diluted to the point that its likely there isn't a molecule of the drug in question left in the solution. "The water remembers." Shrug ...

I've never understood how homeopathy has so many believers. Even a basic level of understanding in science (or just... common sense, really) should give you enough knowledge to make you question how and why such a treatment would work. People of a similar mindset may enjoy this Mitchell and Webb sketch: