|
Post by london2146 on Feb 27, 2006 23:37:59 GMT -5
Hey all, Not feeling all that great today so will not be posting too much tonight. Thanks for saying that Skytroll. Thanks to you too. We will get those bastards, I just know we will. Good Ms. Carey, I need your thought-provoking questions...... lizzin Portland, You are brave. Real brave. Thanks for sharing..... After I read your post it made me remember that I had saved an article about a week ago on some device they had made to suck HIV virus out of blood. So after 3 hrs of searching my file, I found it! This is great news..... Of course I have not read it yet, but hey it sounds good so far......... I figured if they ( gov't or Pharma Co. made what we have, then one knows they made a cure for it. How the hell else would they make any money?? I just hope that's the case and not these " Gaia psychos" or "aetheistic mafia" creatures. Now that I think about it......( all of the above sucks rocks)!! Here's the Trypansoma Cruzi (it's long and hard to read but just at least read page 1, it's interesting. One last thing, I have a lot more articles that I know fits into morg disease that I have not posted- example of titile: Cytoskeeatal and Morphological Changes in Rho GTPase...... and one called " Impact of Goethite Particles on UV Disinfection of Drinking Water." **The reason for me stating this is simply because I also saw on this article that I have just skimmed, something about the cure for it! My eyes nearly popped out! yea..maybe there is hope you all. Tomorrow~ London
|
|
|
Post by london2146 on Feb 27, 2006 23:41:09 GMT -5
Expression of a membrane-bound form of Trypanosoma cruzi trans-sialidase in baculovirus-infected insect cells: a potential tool for sialylation of glycoproteins produced in the baculovirus–insect cells system tinyurl.com/rx3bn
|
|
|
Post by london2146 on Feb 27, 2006 23:45:03 GMT -5
an excellent article here: London Counterselectable Markers: Untapped Tools for Bacterial Genetics and Pathogenesis tinyurl.com/qrkqtPLEASE READ THIS SOMEONE!!!!! IT'S NOT LONG. **THANKS
|
|
|
Post by london2146 on Feb 28, 2006 21:24:52 GMT -5
1973: Biohazard Controversies Get out of Hand. Discussions at a June 1973 Gordon Conference led the organizers to call for a moratorium on some recombinant research and for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to set up a committee to study questions about the safety of certain laboratory projects.
Concerns over the safety of some genetic engineering projects began to be discussed in publications for the general scientific community.
Wright's research found that leaders of the scientific community then began to express concerns that a 'panic response' would develop.
Leaders of the scientific community, such as the president of the National Academy of Sciences, became troubled over the uncontrolled debate and sought ways to keep the control of molecular biology and its controversies within the scientific community. The result, however, was that, "decisions on whether to slow research were being made by the very people on whom pressures to pursue genetic engineering were the strongest" (Wright 1994, p.137).
Scientists began to talk in 1974 about containment of experiments and about using 'disarmed' laboratory host organisms in order to be doubly safe.
The faction in favor of taking the risks began to argue that while the risks could not be exactly predicted,
1. The great potential benefits would outweigh the physical, social, economic, or ethical risks.
2. Laboratory experiments could be contained, and thus, whether they were dangerous or not, there was no reason to stop recombinant research.
3. The freedom of scientists to pursue whatever research they saw fit was too important a principle to sacrifice.
4. "If hazards could arise in using new biotechnologies ... many scientists were quick to insist that the general public should not deal with them; policy-making decisions were claimed to be the right and responsibility of scientists alone." (Wright 1994, p.135).
1975: Asilomar -- The Public Sees Part of the Debates. It was clear by 1974 that the diverse controversies would grow and could not be contained by the scientific leadership. So a conference that would be attended by the press was scheduled at Asilomar, California for February 1975. The conference was a success for the leadership for several reasons:
1. The conference recommended that recombinant DNA research should proceed.
2. It promised that the molecular biologists could and would police themselves. READ THAT SENRTENCE AGAIN...they policed themselves???Scary!
3. It left the public with the impression that the only substantial issue about the development of recombinant DNA technology was the biohazard question of laboratory safety. Thus the economic, social, political, military, ethical, and future ecological issues largely dropped from public view.
4. The questions about the safety of specific laboratory projects soon became blurred and the more general, if unlikely, issue emerged regarding the safety of any and all laboratory work with recombinant DNA. There was a focus on highly improbable, but easily dismissed, concerns such as those implied in the question, "Will any arbitrary mixing of DNA across species boundaries be highly dangerous?"
The negative consequence of the Asilomar conference was that a number of serious issues were neglected and passed on for the future to discover again. As Clifford Grobstein put it,
Despite the creation of an NIH-led interagency committee for federal coordination, a forum for concerted deliberation on the excluded Asilomar agenda never came into existence. So the public policy debate and, to some degree, the public impression of recombinant technology remained fixed on worst-case scenarios symbolized by the Andromeda strain (Grobstein 1986).
Concerns over the possible social, economic, and other problems from genetic engineering were reduced to the simple technical matter of containment and to the improbable concern that a biohazard scenario would emerge. As Grobstein warned, the result of this 'success' was to fence the issue within the turf of a special interest group within the scientific community and to prevent further effective deliberation by other scientists and the educated public of the complicated and serious social issues that lay ahead (Regal 1996).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase II: 1984 -- The New Deliberate Release Problem The issue of 'deliberate release' or 'deliberate introduction' was among those issues that faded from view as a result of the Asilomar and Research Advisory Committee focus on contained laboratory experiments and disarmed laboratory organisms.
|
|
|
Post by LONDON as a guest on Feb 28, 2006 21:44:10 GMT -5
VIEWPOINTS Bad Bugs Need Drugs: An Update on the Development Pipeline from the Antimicrobial Availability Task Force of the Infectious Diseases Society of America The Antimicrobial Availability Task Force (AATF) of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has viewed with concern the decreasing investment by major pharmaceutical companies in antimicrobial research and development. Although smaller companies are stepping forward to address this gap, their success is uncertain. The IDSA proposed legislative and other federal solutions to this emerging public health problem in its July 2004 policy report "Bad Bugs, No Drugs: As Antibiotic R&D Stagnates, a Public Health Crisis Brews." At this time, the legislative response cannot be predicted. To emphasize further the urgency of the problem for the benefit of legislators and policy makers and to capture the ongoing frustration our clinician colleagues experience in their frequent return to an inadequate medicine cabinet, the AATF has prepared this review to highlight pathogens that are frequently resistant to licensed antimicrobials and for which few, if any, potentially effective drugs are identifiable in the late-stage development pipeline. tinyurl.com/fo54wlONDON
|
|
|
Post by skytroll on Feb 28, 2006 21:51:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by London as a guest on Feb 28, 2006 21:51:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by London as a guest on Feb 28, 2006 22:06:06 GMT -5
8 PAGE PDF ON PHAGES; sO IF THERE IS NO MEDS TO TREAT STAPH INFECTIONS, GUESS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SETTLE FOR "PHAGE-THERAPY"? SCARY ( FYI FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR W/ IT. iT IS WHERE THEY PUT THE BACTERIA BACK INTO YOUR BODY TO EAT THE CURRENT ONE AWAY.) LONDON tinyurl.com/jf4hp
|
|
|
Post by London as a guest on Feb 28, 2006 22:18:15 GMT -5
SKYTROLL, hEY, i AM IN PROCESS OF GOING THRU AND ORGANIZING MY OLDER DOCUMENTS. I SAW WHERE YOU SEEMED INTERESTED IN WHAT "MAGGIE" WROTE RECENTLY ON BIOSENSORS. hERES A GOOD ONE OF MINE i FOUND. iT TALKS OF USING FIBERS....(FIBER OPTICS) ALSO i HAVE ONE I'M TRYING TO LOCATE FROM NOVEMBER. I APPARENTLY JUST MADE A COPY 91ST PAGE ONLY-OUT OF 4) and on the paper it does not list web address. It is about human bioreacter and fibers) So heres this other one if you're iinterested. Meant to tell you last night that I really liked your hyperlink you provided on "origins". thank you, London tinyurl.com/g7mhz
|
|
|
Post by skytroll on Feb 28, 2006 22:21:51 GMT -5
London,
And that is not even looking at all at what gm and ge can do to us. They cannot even contain staph. But, good news that 8,000 doctors are concerned with this. I wonder if they got any feedback. All the NIH and CDC and HHS is going to Homeland Security, Genoming, Stem Cell, and experimental nano, gene therapy and other things, not to what is necessary. They are pole vaulting over the elephant to get to the amoeba and transform the little suckers to have flagellas. Like the trypanasoma trans thing. Will read and scrutinize it, plus the other one you have there.
Did you note my reply on the vector virus as gene therapy. I do not believe in gene therapy because if there is no shut off for the virus that kills the bad cells then, patient is left with the virus which can kill. Why would or should they use a vectoral virus to bring in correcting genes or genes that cause bad cell death, yet leave the goods cells alone, when these virus are basically lethal? Makes no sense to me. The theory is good but, the manner of delivery stinks.
Will read others you have out here.
Thank you,
Skytroll
|
|
|
Post by lONDON TO SKYTROLL on Mar 1, 2006 0:11:23 GMT -5
Skytroll, yes, I read it. ( Vector virus) I bet that's where they go with this....phage therapy. If you search that bsacteriophage website, there is some wicked stuff on there. I find new stuff each time I visit that mans site. Here's another on cyanobacteria......IT'S SHORT TOO A proposal for further integration of the cyanobacteria under the Bacteriological Code tinyurl.com/zzxcwlONDON
|
|
|
Post by betsy on Mar 1, 2006 1:28:50 GMT -5
VERY INTERESTING LINK of plant and animal kingdom. It appears they are just getting agreement on what to call these interdisciplinary items from two kingdoms.
|
|
|
Post by LONDON on Mar 1, 2006 1:33:35 GMT -5
Betsy, I bet you're right! Here's another very New-2006) tinyurl.com/nwvfbThanks, Lodnon
|
|
|
Post by accudoc on Mar 1, 2006 2:33:21 GMT -5
I like where you are going my own research suggests that there is a nematode/trematode connection along carried by an insect vector. I found the bacteria component to be mycoplasma and some organism close to anthrax as the Homeopathic Antracinum 30c (which by the way is for insect bites) has a positive effect on my symptoms.
|
|
|
Post by London as a guest on Mar 1, 2006 2:46:40 GMT -5
Exactly, you think the vector could possibly be a beetle/flea???
Please write more if you're so inclined. Would love to hear about your research.
Thank you!
Lodnon
|
|
|
Post by London to ACCUDOC on Mar 1, 2006 2:50:15 GMT -5
Dear accudoc,
thanks also for sharing your homeopathic remedy. Have you taken it very long? Any tips/ advice on product?
London
|
|
|
Post by lONDON AS A GUEST on Mar 1, 2006 2:59:38 GMT -5
hERE IS WHAT i READ BUT HAVE NO WEB ADDRESS, JUST A ONE PAGE PAPER WITH THIS ON IT:
PROPOSALS TO ICTV EX. COMMITTEE
TO COMBINE THE ENTEROVIRUS AND RHINOVIRUS GENERA TO COMBINE THE POLIOVIRUS AND HUMAN ENTEROVIRUS C SPECIES TO MAKE HUMAN ENTEROVIRUS C THE TYPE SPECIES OF THE FAMILY
PROPOSALS IN PREPARATION:
TO CREAT A NEW SPECIES, SENECA VALLEY VIRUS, AS YET UNASSIGNED TO A GENUS TO RENAME SPECIES PORCINE ENTEROVIRUS A TO {YET TO BE NAMED} TO CREATE A NEW SPECIES CONTAINING SV2 TO " " " " CONTAINING DUCK TO CREATE A NEW GENUS, SAPELOVIRUS, CONTAINING 3 SPECIES; PORCINE
LONDON
|
|
|
Post by LONDON as a guest on Mar 1, 2006 3:10:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LONDON as a guest on Mar 1, 2006 3:15:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by catholic4life on Mar 1, 2006 4:44:05 GMT -5
A cat flea can give you a tapeworm. There are some 200 kinds of botfly type of maggots that can infest humans. A maggot can get into your nasal passage (or anywhere) as a result of a tick bite. The fly transmits its eggs to humans by way of a tick. It deposits its eggs on the tick. Humans are infested when bitten by a tick. Apparently the folks at Davis and CDC are not especially interested in original research on vector borne disease. Also MRSA tends to colonize the nose. New hybrid strains can also invade deep tissue. Can be fatal.
|
|