Share
View previous topicGo downView next topic
avatar
~
Posts : 278
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2017-06-28
View user profilehttp://immortality.forumotion.me

Controlling Cell Behavior with Magnets

on Thu 29 Jun 2017, 23:19
frank2008
Alex Chiu Product Vendor


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 5387


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:08 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Controlling Cell Behavior with Magnets

Technology Review, Jan. 18, 2008


Harvard Medical School researchers have demonstrated a means of controlling cell functions with a physical, rather than chemical, signal.

Using a magnetic field to pull together tiny beads targeted to particular cell receptors, Harvard researchers made cells take up calcium, and then stop, then take it up again. It could lead to a totally new class of therapies that rely on cells themselves to make and release drugs.

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Dr. Phelps
Heretic


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 1144


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:04 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Here is the full article. http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/20087/



Can you believe these stupid scientists? They have to use nanoparticles to manipulate the cells while Alex Chiu has been manipulating cells and granting us immortality with simple magnetic rings for years now. Hahahaha You see all sorts of fancy words on that site like they actually understand how cells function yet not one mention of chi blockades or anything like that. What dolts.

Alex Chiu - 1

Stupid Scientists - 0

View user's profileSend private message
TwistinUnderSchizophrenia
Veteran IDU Member


Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 794


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:16 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Here's another article on nanoparticles. They might be a different kind, and this article is about curing Retinitis Pigmentosa (which I have), but mentions could be used for curing other conditions.

Nanoparticles Show Promise for Delivering Vision-Restoring Genestothe Retina

By Ben A. Shaberman
08/27/2007

Nanoparticles are a rapidly emerging technology that is appearing in emerging treatments for retinal diseases, cancer, HIV, and a variety of other conditions. These microscopic particles — which are like tiny rocks as small as one fifty-thousandth of an inch — are uniquely able to penetrate cells and tissue for the delivery of therapeutic genes and molecules.

An investigative team funded by the Foundation Fighting Blindness demonstrated that nanoparticles may be a safe and effective way to deliver healthy genes to replace the abnormal genes that cause vision-robbing retinal degenerative diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa (RP).

Muna Naash, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma, in collaboration with Copernicus Therapeutics (Cleveland, Ohio), used nanoparticles to restore vision in mice with RP. The nanoparticles were produced by compressing DNA with the corrective gene and coating it in a waxy, slippery substance. These particles were then injected into the retinas of the mice to deliver the gene.

The treated mice showed both functional and structural improvement in their retinas. “Our results provide proof-of-principle that nanoparticles may be used as a therapeutic intervention for retinal degenerative disorders,” says Naash.

Naash, who has been involved in retinal disease research for the last 25 years, has been conducting Foundation-funded nanoparticle investigations for the last three years. She received her doctorate degree from Baylor College of Medicine, and her master and bachelor degrees from the University of Baghdad.

Copernicus is developing nanoparticle technology for a variety of medical applications including: retinal diseases, cancer, vaccinations, and cystic fibrosis.

Naash and her collaborators will continue to evaluate nanoparticles in small and large animal models for safety and efficacy before moving into human clinical trials. She hopes that human studies can begin in a few years.
Nanoparticles

“Nanoparticles are a technology that we are excited about,” says Stephen Rose, Ph.D., Chief Research Officer, Foundation Fighting Blindness. “They are showing good potential for safe and targeted gene delivery for different forms of retinal degenerative diseases. In addition, nanoparticles are being used to deliver small neuroprotective molecules in the eye with sustained, long-term release."

The Foundation also funds gene therapy research, which employs man-made, therapeutic viruses to deliver genes to the retina. “We are investing in both viral and nanoparticle gene delivery research projects, because both strategies may have benefits in getting healthy genes to the retina,” says Rose.

Source: http://www.blindness.org/research.asp?id=311&type=2,+3,+4,+5,+6

I'm really hopeful for this.

View user's profileSend private message
v71
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 455


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:35 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Dr. Phelps, weren't you talking about placebo effect about the rings ?
Loks like you changed your mind.
Shall we know why ?

View user's profileSend private message
Dr. Phelps
Heretic


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 1144


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:44 am Reply with quoteBack to top
v71 wrote:
Dr. Phelps, weren't you talking about placebo effect about the rings ?
Loks like you changed your mind.
Shall we know why ?



It was sarcasm.

View user's profileSend private message
frank2008
Alex Chiu Product Vendor


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 5387


PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:00 am Reply with quoteBack to top
I hoped you saw the Light.

Anyway nano-biotechnology in 15 years from now will grant us superhuman physical capabilities and superhuman longevity.

Nowadays already exist artificial red blood cells which can make anyone a super-champion in 10 minutes if exchanged with your natural red cells!
If a normal person change 10% of his/her red blood cells with artificial ones, that person will be able to stay under water for 20 minutes without breathing.
Seriously.
Medicine/technology advancement is now so fast that we cannot follow it day per day anymore.

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Knightwriter
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 288


PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:47 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Dr. Phelps wrote:
v71 wrote:
Dr. Phelps, weren't you talking about placebo effect about the rings ?
Loks like you changed your mind.
Shall we know why ?



It was sarcasm.


Being close-minded or too naive are both different signs of a lack of intelligence.

Faraday was often laughed at by nobodies in the manner that you are laughing at Alex. It reflects badly on you. Faraday was not academically educated, but understood mathematics and schematics intuitively and through self-education.

As such he could never have been accused of being educated beyond his intelligence, like so many are.

This post from me is irrespective of the clear deficiencies in Alex's repetoire. He has all the social skills of the wolfchild and the common sense of a ten year old, but it does not mean he is not a great inventor. That has yet to be proven. However, the weight of interest and testimonials suggest he has achieved something worthy. How worthy is still a mute point scientifically and observationally.

Oh why Alex don't you address your flaws? You only give life's cynics ammunition to throw at you. You'll never be viewed as a great man unless you have a more rounded character, even if your inventions do prove to be revolutionary.

View user's profileSend private message
Dr. Phelps
Heretic


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 1144


PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:14 pm Reply with quoteBack to top
Knightwriter wrote:
Dr. Phelps wrote:
v71 wrote:
Dr. Phelps, weren't you talking about placebo effect about the rings ?
Loks like you changed your mind.
Shall we know why ?



It was sarcasm.


Being close-minded or too naive are both different signs of a lack of intelligence.




How exactly have I been close-minded or naive? I have personally tried Alex`s products and I would bet I have been following Alex, his forums, and the progression of his products longer than you have.

View user's profileSend private message
Knightwriter
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 288


PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:56 pm Reply with quoteBack to top
Dr. Phelps wrote:
Knightwriter wrote:
Dr. Phelps wrote:
v71 wrote:
Dr. Phelps, weren't you talking about placebo effect about the rings ?
Loks like you changed your mind.
Shall we know why ?



It was sarcasm.


Being close-minded or too naive are both different signs of a lack of intelligence.




How exactly have I been close-minded or naive? I have personally tried Alex`s products and I would bet I have been following Alex, his forums, and the progression of his products longer than you have.


I wouldn't have expected you to understand Dr. Phelps since you are just another herd thinker from the priesthood that is the medical profession. You are an expert in diagnosis and emergency first-aid, but you know sweet ✗✗✗✗ all about anything else medically and yet you act like a egotistical know all.

Perish the thought doctor, but maybe, just maybe, when something is not accepted in the doctrine that is conventional science it may still be rooted in truth. The religion that is modern medicine is furthermore not just a doctrine, but deeply corrupted by medical lobbies that influence education, treatments and the updates.

You sir, are a very close-minded man. I have observed your behaviour on many occasions, and although it is to be to expected from a doctor it is still never the less always a great let down.

Is there any chance of you getting your head out of your ass? Here's a tip: Close-mindedness from the science fraternity is just the same as the blinkered neurotic views of bible bashers like ATA. The only difference being that you are a disciple of current convention, a relatively newer more popular one called 'science' but which is so easily corrupted due to the very deliberate clinging to the two dimensional Neutonian models. The underpinning mindset is actually naivety and reverence to outside authority. The inglorious peasant mindset that has always been a problem with mankind. The thinking of those that create this is easy power, sociopathy and greed.

Close-minded 'scientists' are simply a crew of know-alls with an imbalanced left brained intelligence who have been educated beyond their intelligence. They do not engage great science, only what they have been trained to do, but these are very limited versions that can be so easily prostituted and distorted beyond recognition. And they have been which has produced a cocktail that has led medicine into one hell of a mess. And until this is realised it won't be corrected either.

As for Alex I've followed his work for a few months now and read all his writings, used all his products. I can guarantee you I am as familiar with him and his work as anybody needs to be. I was very curious about his inventions and even trauled the forum to read all his posts.

View user's profileSend private message
kamebazooka
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 707


PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:53 pm Reply with quoteBack to top
knightwriter, what you say how other scientists behave is one thing, but how is dr phelps being closed-minded?
he says he gave alex's products a try.

if anyone who doesn't have a positive experience with alex's products is closed-minded, then why should alex bother to have them tested rigorously? he can just say, "the reason it didn't work is because you are too closed-minded."

View user's profileSend private message
Knightwriter
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 288


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:15 am Reply with quoteBack to top
kamebazooka wrote:
knightwriter, what you say how other scientists behave is one thing, but how is dr phelps being closed-minded?
he says he gave alex's products a try.

if anyone who doesn't have a positive experience with alex's products is closed-minded, then why should alex bother to have them tested rigorously? he can just say, "the reason it didn't work is because you are too closed-minded."


What a nonsense post. Alex has never said you have to believe in them to work.

And it is plainly obvious Dr. Phelps is close-minded from his behaviour. He has made many comments to the effect that the rings are a load of crap, even though there are a mountain of testimonials that say different.

His view is staunch based only on his own experience. However, if the rings do have large benefits, as could well be the case, then it is quite likely that many won't actually feel much but will still be getting benefits that may not be conscious to them for months or even years.

His attitude doesn't show much intelligence to me, but just somebody who was dying to say they don't do anything. I know from his posts he's just another two-bob from the 'great' medical dynasty.

Quite simply it is naive to say they definitely will give you immortal life only on one man's word and it is close-minded to say they are definitely a load of crap.

That you would even ask how he has been close-minded doesn't say much for you either.

View user's profileSend private message
kamebazooka
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 707


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:45 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Knightwriter wrote:

Quite simply it is naive to say they definitely will give you immortal life only on one man's word and it is close-minded to say they are definitely a load of crap.


Alex does not make small claims, he makes big ones. I believe people are attracted to his products for those big claims (immortality, supermodel, etc...)

If you try something which claims miracle benefits, and they do not do so for you (as is the case for dr phelps), i believe you are entitled to say they are a load of crap. What's more, I believe you should get your money back.

"Such people are simply closed-minded." You are correct: it is not alex who is yet making such an excuse; you are doing it for him.

you and dr phelps are in the same boat -- you are both dissatisfied with alex's behavior -- why not be allies?

View user's profileSend private message
Dr. Phelps
Heretic


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 1144


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:07 am Reply with quoteBack to top
Knightwriter wrote:
And it is plainly obvious Dr. Phelps is close-minded from his behaviour. He has made many comments to the effect that the rings are a load of crap, even though there are a mountain of testimonials that say different.


If you sent out placebo pills to 10,000 people and claimed they had magical effects you would get a ton of positive testimonials too. Would you call someone a fool for not believing in the power of the pills? Are you honestly trying to imply that testimonials are proof of anything other than a few people that think they may have been affected by a product?



Quote:
His view is staunch based only on his own experience. However, if the rings do have large benefits, as could well be the case, then it is quite likely that many won't actually feel much but will still be getting benefits that may not be conscious to them for months or even years.



Well isnt that convenient? So you will have us believe that the rings have no effect that can be felt or measured in any way and that we are just supposed to purchase and wear them on faith? Are you serious?




Quote:
His attitude doesn't show much intelligence to me, but just somebody who was dying to say they don't do anything. I know from his posts he's just another two-bob from the 'great' medical dynasty.



Sounds like you are insecure in your own beliefs to lash out at anyone with an opposing viewpoint.

View user's profileSend private message
kamebazooka
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 707


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:22 am Reply with quoteBack to top
I think we all have a few common goals here, and to argue over other things will get in the way, so I propose this:

Let us agree that if you will allow your mind to be changed on Alex products by the results of rigorous testing, then you are not closed-minded.

Whether you believe right now that alex's products work or not, this is enough agreement to go forward.

If you are closed-minded, you would believe what you believe, no matter the evidence.

Franco says that rings will show no effect on healthy young people, so we should restrict such testing to older or the elderly, or the sick.

I proposed before of giving rings to terminally ill patients and comparing survival rates after 1 year.

If all such patients are cured and living, would you accept this as proof that Alex's rings work?
Likewise, if any of them die, would you accept that they do not work?

I want to know what sort of experiment will be acceptable to open-minded people.

View user's profileSend private message
Knightwriter
Valued IDU Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 288


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:08 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Dr. Phelps wrote:
Knightwriter wrote:
And it is plainly obvious Dr. Phelps is close-minded from his behaviour. He has made many comments to the effect that the rings are a load of crap, even though there are a mountain of testimonials that say different.


If you sent out placebo pills to 10,000 people and claimed they had magical effects you would get a ton of positive testimonials too. Would you call someone a fool for not believing in the power of the pills? Are you honestly trying to imply that testimonials are proof of anything other than a few people that think they may have been affected by a product?



Quote:
His view is staunch based only on his own experience. However, if the rings do have large benefits, as could well be the case, then it is quite likely that many won't actually feel much but will still be getting benefits that may not be conscious to them for months or even years.



Well isnt that convenient? So you will have us believe that the rings have no effect that can be felt or measured in any way and that we are just supposed to purchase and wear them on faith? Are you serious?




Quote:
His attitude doesn't show much intelligence to me, but just somebody who was dying to say they don't do anything. I know from his posts he's just another two-bob from the 'great' medical dynasty.



Sounds like you are insecure in your own beliefs to lash out at anyone with an opposing viewpoint.


Incorrect, I don't have any beliefs either way, I just resent a bad attitude to science.

And you are twisting my words as to what I said about the rings. All I am saying is that if the rings are scientifically proven to work then one can take that leap of faith knowing that they do work even if it doesn't seem that way for a while.

As it is, the rings are not proven either way, but they should not be dismissed in the manner that they have been. And the testimonials go beyond what anyone could get from placebo. Franco turned from ugly into a good-looking man with a more symetrical and better proportioned face. If placebo can accomplish this then ATA is an atheist.

As Kombazooka says we both agree that we are very unhappy with Alex. But I am also very unhappy with our doctor's education and approach. I can't stand the smug cynicism and that every truth must go through ridicule and then resistance before it is accepted. Why should the tryers and the geniuses have to go through such torture to do great things?

And this is only the beginning of it. It is not my belief that allopathic medicine is grossly overused and that modern medicine is largely a joke, it is an easily discernable fact.
View previous topicBack to topView next topic
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum