Medical researchers patented AIDS cure in 1990

[donsu]

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2862.shtml


-snip-

In the Fall of 1990, two medical researchers, Drs. William Lyman and Steven Kaali, working at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City made an important discovery. They found that they could inactivate the HIV virus by applying a low voltage direct current electrical potential with an extremely small current flow to AIDS infected blood in a test tube. Initially, they discovered this in the lab by inserting two platinum electrodes into a glass tube filled with HIV-1 (type 1) infected blood.

They applied a direct current to the electrodes and found that a current flow in the range of 50-100 microamperes (uA) produced the most effective results. Practically all of the HIV viral particles were adversely affected while normal blood cells remained unharmed. The viral particles were not directly destroyed by the electric current, but rather the outer protein coating of the virus was affected in such a way as to prevent the virus from producing reverse transcriptase, a necessary enzyme needed by the virus to invade human cells.

-snip-

A brief announcement of this discovery appeared in The Houston Post (Mar 20, 1991), then in Science News (Mar. 30, 1991 pg. 207) and later in Longevity magazine: (Dec.1992 pg. 14). Following their work in the Fall of 1990, Kaali and Lyman presented their findings at the First International Symposium on Combination Therapies (an AIDS conference) in Washington DC on March 14th, 1991. Kaali outlined two methods for treating an AIDS patient with this new therapy: One method involved removing a small amount of blood, electrifying it and then returning it to the patient's body. The second method involved sewing a miniature electrifying power supply along with two tiny electrodes directly into the lumen of an artery. For long term treatment, the mini electrifying unit needed to be removed and relocated to a new artery site after 30-45 days since scar tissue and calcification forming around the implant unit would lead to artery blockage. Kaali (along with co-inventor Peter Schwolsky) filed for a patent on this implantable electrifying device on Nov 16, 1990 and nine months later was granted patent #5,139,684 on August 18, 1992.

It's interesting to note two things here:

1. In order to obtain a patent from the United States Patent Office, Kaali and Schwolsky had to prove that the device works as claimed. Lacking solid proof, US patents are simply not granted.

2. Very often it takes years to obtain a patent, yet this patent was granted in only nine months; a further indication to me of the strength of their demonstrated claims

It's also interesting to note that other than the 3 publications mentioned above and the March '91 AIDS conference, nothing again appeared in print, radio, or TV about this important discovery as a potential treatment and cure for AIDS from Kaali and company. Most knowledgeable observers feel that Kaali and Lyman's discovery was intentionally suppressed following the March '91 AIDS conference presentation.

f AIDS research was on the level and not the sham that it actually is, this should have made front page news around the world. (Around 1999, I was contacted by a woman with AIDS who had managed to reach Dr. William Lyman over the phone. She asked him about his experiments with Kaali regarding blood electrification and if she could obtain the treatment through them. Lyman denied any knowledge of any AIDS treatment or cure. He said he never heard of Dr. Kaali and he had no idea what she was talking about concerning blood electrification and then hung up on her. What does that tell about the power of the people behind the suppression of this discovery?)

Accompanying document and addresses
(these are very revealing)
-snip-
-----------------

[coffeenap]

1. k & r, nt

[Jackpine Radical]

2. The fix was too cheap.

The best solution is a medication that suppresses the symptoms without actually curing the disease, so people have to take it long-term. Any other solution would be detrimental to the profits of the drug companies.

[stray cat]

3. Lots of things work in test tubes, get patented and fall apart in reality

Patent is more based in law than proof that it will actually work.

[Warpy]

4. Exactly, I've seen lots of test tube cures over the years

that didn't pan out in animal models and never even got to human testing.

The problem with this one is that while low voltage electrical current might not damage blood cells, it can play hell with nervous and cardiac tissues.

The former is especially important because the HIV virus loves to hide in central nervous system tissue.

I can see this particular cure applied to the nation's blood supply, though.

[LeftCoast]

5. OK, couple things here

It seems plausible to me that this device works as advertized and kills HIV in the blood. I assume from tests it does no other harm to blood cells. However, the first 'solution' zapping a patient's blood and returning it would not cure the patient. HIV resides in numerous reservoirs in the body and would simply reinfect the blood on return. The second method also would not work, for the same reason, however this method is a bit more complex. You could argue that using this device could keep HIV at bay, by inactivating it in the blood even if it's still in reservoirs somewhere, HOWEVER tying this in with the arterial system would lead to so many life-threatening complications with so many patients, I doubt people would live very long or very enjoyably.

SO, the patents were probably granted because it may zap HIV from the blood, but it won't cure AIDS. Make sense?

[kestrel91316]

6. In vitro does not equal in vivo. They did not find a "cure". They

found an interesting phenomenon.

[MADem]

7. I don't think your assertion that a patent has to WORK is true at all

It simply has to not already be on file. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

Crazy Patents! For the USPTO to issue a patent, the invention must be novel, non-obvious, and "useful." The standard for usefulness is certainly the weakest of the three -- any possible utility, no matter how small, will suffice. And, useful does not necessarily mean commercially viable. In other words, you can get a patent on some crazy things that will never make it to the shelves of your local store....