View Full Version : Could Cancer be the Answer? (ame-a209)

August 30th, 2005, 09:46 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV> <P>Attention Dissident Community!</P> <P>Okay, I ve been trying to think of other "simple logic" loopholes with which to bring down the AIDS paradigm.&nbsp; I thought I had them by the short and curlies with the "No alternative theory given a dime" contradiction,&nbsp;but they&nbsp;seemed to pretty&nbsp;easily&nbsp;weasel their way out of it,&nbsp;with&nbsp;"funding is NOT given to an alternative theory if any part of that theory has already been disproven."</P> <P>Here s my latest one, however!&nbsp; Tell me if ya think it s "sea worthy" before I spring on the AIDS puppets:</P> <P>The Orthodoxy claims that HIV kills T-cells, thus causing the immune system to collapse,&nbsp;allowing opportunistic infections to take hold, which include some forms of CANCER.&nbsp; Their argument is that the immune system is "suppressing cancer" and can no longer keep it in check because of the HIV infection!&nbsp; So questions arise, such as:</P> <P>1) &nbsp;If cancer is "self," how does the body recognizes it in the first place as being "foreign," since the reason cancer takes over is that the body does NOT recognize it as a threat?</P> <P>2) &nbsp;If HIV is suppressing the immune system for those with AIDS, how are the immune systems of <EM>all the other cancer patients </EM>being suppressed -&nbsp;so that <EM>their bodies </EM>can no longer "keep the cancer in check"?&nbsp; In other words, if they don t have HIV, what s causing their immune systems to collapse, thus allowing the cancer to grow out of control?&nbsp; Is there something else - besides HIV - that causes immune systems to be compromised, thus allowing cancer in the general population to grow?</P> <P>3) &nbsp;If HIV-positive people have regular T-cell count tests done (to make sure&nbsp;their counts are high enough to ward off opportunistic infections, including cancer) why aren t&nbsp;ALL cancer patients given T-cell count tests as part of their regular treatment to make sure <EM>their immune systems </EM>are strong enough to keep future&nbsp;outbreaks of cancer at bay?</P> <P>4)&nbsp; And how exactly are T-cell counts an accurate measure of health, in the first place, when CD4 counts can vary wildly throughout the day - and the test only takes a "snap shot," no to mention the fact that T-cells are NOT "hanging out" in the bloodstream where they can be tested - they re in the TISSUES doing their job?</P> <P>There are probably many&nbsp;more questions that can be posed about the "T-cell counts as a marker of health" model, but I just wanted to run these past you guys to do a "reality check" before I tossed them into the "snake pit."<BR><BR>I am <EM>hoping </EM>that the current position of cancer&nbsp;researchers is that the immune system has nothing whatsoever to do with supressing cancer, but I dunno if they are still hanging onto that old model from Nixons War on Cancer, or if they have since tossed it...</P> <P>If they have since tossed it, that means we can pit the two institutions (HIV and cancer research) against each other to highlight one of the bigger holes in the HIV paradigm!&nbsp; In particular, it s an argument that simple enough for the general public to understand...&nbsp; And if the cancer&nbsp;researchers have since abandoned the "immune system" model, based on their own "overwhelming evidence,"&nbsp;we can then throw that in the face of the HIV goons, who are still supporting it!&nbsp; And "Poof!" the HIV puppets are&nbsp;suddenly flipping burgers at the local malt shop!</P> <P>And <EM>even if </EM>the cancer&nbsp;researchers haven t abandonded the immune system model, we can <EM>still ask </EM>how hell the body is able to recognize its own cells as being a threat!</P> <P>God, I hope this works!</P> <P>Yours truly,</P> <P>-Paul Whiting</P></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

August 31st, 2005, 12:42 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Paul,<BR><BR>you bring up good points, and ask insightful questions. I don t think you ll be able to "bring down" the HIV=AIDS paradigm with this particular tack though. If TPTB were able to pass off KS and lymphoma as "infections", then a critque of cancer probably won t go as far as you would like. <BR><BR>We re dealing with a paradigm that has nothing to do with sanity or reason. As I ve been saying for quite some time (I m not the ONLY one, of course) is that HIV=AIDS is mass hysteria. What s the best way to deal with mass hysteria? I don t know. Maybe those of us who are so inclined can look into this. Dan </FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

August 31st, 2005, 12:48 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Paul,<BR><BR>something else to note...our friends in the "snake pit" come here and read our messages. They ll have plenty of time to ponder their responses and arguments. Maybe you should post these ideas to a small group of people who are involved in activism? Dan</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

August 31st, 2005, 10:19 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>The so called HIV proteins turn up in cancers anyway.<BR><BR>Detection of P24 protein in human breast cancer: influence of receptor status and oestrogen exposure.<BR>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2372491&dopt=Abstract<BR>?PCR with HIV-1 Env-derived primers revealed DNA sequences with over 90% homology to HIV-1 gp41 in syncytia and in ovarian cancer cells but not in normal ovary cells.?<BR>Giant Syncytia and Virus-Like Particles in Ovarian Carcinoma Cells Isolated from Ascites Fluid <BR>http://cdli.asm.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/115<BR>Cellular hypersensitivity of gp55 of RIII-murine mammary tumor virus and gp55-like protein of human breast cancers.<BR>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=184925&dopt=Abstract<BR>?RAK antigens p120, p42, and p25 exhibit molecular and immunological similarity to the proteins encoded by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and are expressed by 95% of breast and gynecological cancer cases in women and prostate cancer cases in men.?<BR>Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-Like DNA Sequences and Immunoreactive Viral Particles with Unique Association with Breast Cancer<BR>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=95635&tools=bot<BR>Membrane-associated glycoprotein (gp 160) identified on human lung tumors by a monoclonal antibody.<BR>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3536080&dopt=Abstract<BR></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

August 31st, 2005, 10:14 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV>"Cal,"</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>What I am looking to do is debate the HIV theory on simple logic.&nbsp; What I need to know is whether current cancer research centers at all around the old "contagious cancer" model that was part of Nixon s War on Cancer.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If that model has since been abandonded by cancer researchers, we can use that against the HIV researchers who are still supporting it (i.e., HIV suppresses the immune system thus allowing OI&nbsp;to take hold, including some cancers).</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Even if the cancer field of research is still supporting that model (and I can t imagine why they would be!), we can still present a simple argument asking how, exactly, the immune system would "suppress cancer" if cancer cells are "self."</DIV> <DIV><STRONG></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>But my understanding is that current model is that cancer is seen as "self" by the body, which is why it does NOT recongize it as being a threat, and thus allows cancer cells to grow out of control.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Thus, my argument is very simple - two sentences in fact:</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If HIV suppresses the immune system&nbsp;of infected individuals -&nbsp;thus eventually allowing opportunistic infections to take hold, &nbsp;including some forms of cancer -&nbsp;what&nbsp;suppresses the immune system of <EM>all the other cancer patients </EM>who don t have HIV?&nbsp; Is there something else out there besides HIV that is causing severe immune suppression in the&nbsp;general population,&nbsp;thus&nbsp;allowing cancer cells to grow and, if so, what is it?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>This is what I need feedback on!&nbsp; Does the community think this model would stand up to the orthodoxies "think tank"?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Thanks for anyone who s willing to give me their feedback!</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Yours truly,</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-Paul Whiting</DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

September 1st, 2005, 07:52 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Hi Paul, Don t know if I m much help, because I ve noticed the HIV proteins turn up with cancer and so many AIDS patients actually die from cancer it all gets a bit blurred for me.<BR>I ve been recovering from Benzene poisoning for a few years and since it depletes T-cells and they added Benzene to petrol to replace lead in the 80 s we have our culprit for immune damage in cancer patients.<BR><BR>Protracted exposure of C57BL/6 mice to 300 ppm benzene depresses B- and T-lymphocyte numbers and mitogen responses. Evidence for thymic and bone marrow proliferation in response to the exposures.<BR>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3877353&dopt=Abstract<BR><BR>As for pitting cancer researchers against the HIV cult I reckon they re all loony together.<BR>Cancer drugs are immune destroying like AIDS drugs and the immune system does clean up cancer.<BR>Apoptosis or self programmed cell death might be the best nerd description. Of course HIV causes apoptosis of CD4 cells because only 1 in a 1000 are infected .<BR>In theory.CU</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

September 1st, 2005, 08:52 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Paulee,<BR><BR>One of my favorite absurdities is that Hiv supposedly causes Aids by depleting T-cells, yet people with normal T-cell counts are routinely diagnosed with Aids if they get an Opportunistic Illness.<BR><BR>But as others have stated, you re not going to get anywhere with logic. Hiv/Aids isn t held together with logic, but with censorship, corruption and Power.</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

September 1st, 2005, 09:26 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Kinda off topic a bit, but I have seen an article before that says that HIV may oneday be the cure for cancer. It basically said that scientist gutted the HIV" virus and then put it into rats and they had less a chance of getting cancer or something insane like that. How can they gut the HIV virus if it has never been isolated and purified?</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

September 2nd, 2005, 04:47 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Interesting... But the, isn t shooting people also a cure for both AIDS and cancer? <BR><BR>Wilhelm<BR></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

September 29th, 2005, 06:58 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Paulee we might underestimate just how illogical and twisted the orthodox mind really is. Consider this study....<BR><BR> Immune boost to fight cancer <BR>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4274430.stm<BR>[my comments in quotes]<BR><BR>Scientists say they have found a way to boost the body s immune system which could also help stave off cancer. <BR><BR>The Mayo Clinic team were inspired by what they observed among healthcare workers accidentally exposed to HIV and who then received anti-viral treatment. <BR><BR>These workers remained healthy and free of HIV. The therapy dramatically increased the number of immune cells the body made to fight the infection. <BR><BR>The drugs could help people fight off cancer in a similar way, they believe. <BR><BR>The treatment Dr David McKean and colleagues studied is called antiretroviral therapy (ART). <BR><BR>[see Graham DB et al. "Increased thymic output in HIV-negative patients after antiretroviral therapy." AIDS 2005; 19(14):1467-1472. ]<BR><BR>The therapy appears to boost the number of T cells - immune cells that fight invading pathogens - that the body makes in an organ called the thymus by a factor of up to 1,000. <BR><BR>The numbers increased even among older people who generally produce fewer T cells. <BR><BR>The researchers then conducted some experiments in mice to check that ART did not cause the immune system to erroneously attack the host instead of the disease agents, which it did not. <BR><BR>[QUOTES:] We can potentially improve the likelihood of getting a cancer vaccine to work -- Researcher Dr David McKean <BR><BR>These drugs have been around for a long time and have been proven to be safe and fight HIV -- A spokeswoman from Aids charity AVERT<BR><BR>Cancer vaccines<BR><BR>This would suggest that giving ART to people to boost their T cell number and improve their immunity against things like cancer would not be harmful, they said. <BR><BR>Scientists have already been looking at cancer vaccines. <BR><BR>[And obviously there is a lot of money to be made in the new cocktail of ART and cancer vaccine -- stay tuned folks, will the War on AIDS end the War on Cancer?!?!!]<BR><BR>Dr McKean said: "One of the potential uses we envision is to use the ART treatment as a way to use tumour components to immunise cancer patients against their own cancer cells." <BR><BR>He said currently it was difficult to do this because tumours give off a variety of soluble products which are known to hamper the immune system but are not clearly understood. <BR><BR>"If we can use the ART drugs to increase the number of newly produced T cells in cancer patients first, we can potentially improve the likelihood of getting a cancer vaccine to work," he said. <BR><BR>ART may also boost T cell numbers enough to allow patients who do not respond as well to vaccines - such as the elderly or very sick - to mount an effective immune response, he added. <BR><BR>[So we are going to give ART to elderly people given some percentage don t respond well to flu vaccines? Booster ART -- call it BART -- to go along with measles...]<BR><BR>Future hope <BR><BR>A spokeswoman from the international Aids charity AVERT said: "It does sound like a promising approach if they can get it to work clinically." <BR><BR>[So did this person not want to go on record? Anonymous AVERT worker please recall clinical outcomes never stopped AZT.]<BR><BR>She said there were many different drug combinations that could be used as anti-viral therapy and that it would be important to explore these as some can cause unpleasant side effects. <BR><BR>[And which drug would be known to not cause unpleasant side effects?]<BR><BR>But she added: "These drugs have been around for a long time and have been proven to be safe and fight HIV." <BR><BR>[If we can use them on HIV/AIDS patients why not cancer patients?]<BR><BR>Professor John Toy of Cancer Research said: "There s a lot of promising early research suggesting that it may be possible to adapt the body s immune defence system to recognise cancer cells and destroy them. <BR><BR>"The real challenge in immunotherapy is to generate T cells able to identify cancer cells and kill them and not be deceived into ignoring them as acceptable versions of normal cells." <BR><BR>[These folks are amazing, now that they think they know how to produce T cells on demand, they are going to retain them by bombarding them with cancer vaccine to force them to do something they have never done -- killing self. Although they let the cat out that T cells ignore cancer cells.] <BR><BR>Story from BBC NEWS:<BR>http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/4274430.stm<BR><BR>Published: 2005/09/25 23:52:22 GMT<BR><BR>? BBC MMV<BR><BR>A More Sober take from MedPage warning this is preliminary.<BR><BR>HIV Drug Boosts Immune System Sharply<BR>http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/HIVAIDS/tb/1798 <BR>By Michael Smith, MedPage Today Staff Writer<BR>Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. <BR>September 23, 2005<BR> <BR>MedPage Today Action Points<BR>Advise patients that this study is preliminary; further research will be needed to find clinical uses for the discovery.<BR><BR>Review<BR>ROCHESTER, Minn., Sept. 23-A short course of the protease inhibitor Viracept (nelfinavir) boosts the immune system dramatically, opening an avenue to better cancer vaccines, researchers at the Mayo Clinic here have found. <BR> <BR>The discovery that the protease inhibitor spurs the output of new lymphocytes from the thymus may have many potential applications, said immunologist David McKean, Ph.D. <BR><BR>In addition to better cancer vaccines, it may also prove valuable in other situations where the immune system is compromised, especially in older patients, he and colleagues suggested in the online edition of the journal AIDS. <BR><BR>Using a relatively new method of tracking the output of the thymus -- dubbed T-cell receptor excision circles or TRECs -- they were able to show that Viracept, and presumably other protease inhibitors, stimulates the thymus to produce more T-cell precursors. The output increased by a factor of between 10 and 1,000. <BR><BR>The largest organ at birth, the thymus shrinks over a lifetime, which is one reason the immune system weakens with age. "It has been known for a number of years that HIV patients [who begin taking antiretroviral drugs] have an increase in their thymic output," Dr. McKean said, but it was unclear why. <BR><BR>HIV attacks the thymus, which produce cells that are precursors to peripheral T-cells, so lowering the amount of virus in a patient might help the thymus, he said. Or the drugs might be acting directly on the organ, causing it to produce more new-born immune cells. <BR><BR>In fact, it s the latter, Dr. McKean and colleagues found. <BR><BR>The researchers studied thymic output in seven HIV-negative health-care workers, ages 24 to 61, who had been accidentally exposed to the virus. <BR><BR>All were given 28 days of prophylactic treatment with antiretroviral drugs, including Viracept, and five of the seven showed sharply increased output of new lymphocytes. None went on to develop HIV. <BR><BR>Because the patients were healthy, the improvement could not be a result of relieving HIV pressure on the thymus, Dr. McKean said. <BR><BR>"Even older patients had a significant increase in thymic output," Dr. McKean said, raising the possibility that a short course of protease inhibitors might be useful in elderly patients with a compromised immune system or chronic disease. <BR><BR>He cited a report this week in The Lancet that suggest current flu vaccines are not as effective as previously thought in people over 65. "That s an obvious target for this," he said. <BR><BR>Dr. McKean also said he and colleagues are hoping to begin a study within six months, in which autologous cancer vaccines will be tested in conjunction with protease-inhibitor boosting of the thymus. <BR><BR>"We re going to see if we can boost thymic output, put new T-cells out in the periphery, and have those cells respond to the cancer vaccine," he said. <BR><BR>HIV drugs are known to cause a range of side effects, including such things as kidney stones and body fat redistribution, but Dr. McKean said a short course of a protease inhibitor wouldn t have such consequences. <BR><BR>Primary source: AIDS<BR>Source reference: <BR>Graham DB et al. Increased thymic output in HIV-negative patients after antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2005; 19(14):1467-1472. <BR>Disclaimer</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

September 29th, 2005, 10:52 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV>Guys,</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The&nbsp;sentence <FONT size=2>"</FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>we might underestimate just how illogical and twisted the orthodox mind really is" </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">could be the understatement of the century!&nbsp; My God, they want to get these drugs into people anyway they freakin can!&nbsp; Holy shit!</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And, correct me if I am wrong, but don t these anti-virals "<FONT face=Arial size=2>dramatically increased the number of immune cells"<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3> because the body is mounting an immune response to being given a poison?</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>I mean, isn t this kind of&nbsp;immune response what "proved" that&nbsp;AZT was effective at boosting T-cells?</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I was talking to Dan the other day and realized that use of these drugs on people who are "going to die anyway" is the perfect money making machine.&nbsp; Afterall, if the "effective treatment" fails, you can just blame the disease.&nbsp; It s&nbsp;a win/win situation&nbsp;for everybody - except, of course, the patient.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>By the way, sorry, I have not responded to earlier posts on this thread, but I have been heavily involved in the talkabout debate, which has been going smashingly!&nbsp; Thanks to everyone who has stopped by to put in their two-cents!</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And "Greg78," wherever you are, I love you man!</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-Paulee</DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

October 1st, 2005, 07:34 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Paulee,<BR><BR>This increase in T-cells is something I ve been wondering about. Are there studies to indicate that the increase could indeed be a bad thing? I m curious as to whether all that time mine were rising and I was told how wonderfully I was doing, I was really getting worse. It would explain things a little better.<BR><BR>Linda</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>