Re: Can AIDS be cured as long as . . .

"Actually your wrong and poorly informed."

Quite a statement considering the number of incorrect (one could say "wrong and poorly informed) assertions that follow!

"A patent can be granted for anything, except something ridiculous like free energy."

Nope! Absolutely Not! (I'll count that as "wrong and poorly informed" assertion #1). Let's see, what are other examples of things that can't be patented? products of nature that were merely discovered (but you can patent the process of extracting, sythesizing them, etc.), printed material (e.g. dice that just have new symbols on them), laws of nature, abstract ideas, things with only immoral purposes (illegal in every jurisdiction - e.g. a cocaine-processing machine), algorithms not applied to specific tasks; oh yeah, and certain materials that could be of use in nuclear weapons.

"The patent does not have to work per se for it to be granted, this much you are right."

Nope! Wrong and poorly informed statement #2! If it is a machine, it must be operable or clearly capable of being so (if it is not, it will fail two requirements: general utility and enablement [even describing it in great detail does not allow a person with ordinary skill in the relevant art to make it work, if the inventor himself cannot]; however, the fact that the gears and wires all connect correctly is different from it curing AIDS. This doesn't mean that a few crappy ones don't slip through the USPTO's hands...

"However the patent makes 'Claims', and without 'Proof', these claims are not granted."

Nope! A patent's claims are not about proof that it works (although this may be a subsidiary issue in some cases, although not very often). The claims merely define the property right that the patent-holder wishes to be conferred upon him.

I think this patent could easily be invalidated (if it's still valid and its holders care to protect it), but probably nobody really cares to. The first thing that came to mind - it's overbroad (see The Incandescent Lamp Patent Case for anyone who cares what this means).

"It makes over 20 claims, which must be proven to be granted, and the claims were granted."

Again, this simply is not true. I would suggest that you bone up on your intellectual property law before you start practicing patent law! Here, I'll start you off with a quote from "Intellectual Property Law in the New Technological Age" "Utility, the second requirement [for a patent], has devolved over the years into a rather minimal obstacle to obtaining a patent. Section 101 is the source of this requirement. 35 USC 101. ("Whoever invents any new AND USEFUL process, machine, or composition of matter, may obtain a patent therefore" [emphasis added]). Today, a patent will not be withheld even though the invention works only in an experimental setting and has no proven use in the field or factory" (hey Menell, that's fair use!) That is, it does have to meet a bare-bones definition of utility, but would not be what most people would consider "useful" in the everyday meaning of the term.

"You are doing these victims a great disservice attempting to confuse them with regards to patent law."

Victims? What victims are you referring to? I'm trying to PREVENT people from becoming victims! The misguided, the gullible, and the greedy (who have a very special spot in hell waiting for them for their plying of useless and often harmful "cures" to the HIV-positive) are constantly trying to take advantage of HIV+ folks with one false hope after another! I find it funny, and a bit insulting, when I've given quite a bit of my own money and time to helping the HIV+ (and have never made a penhy off of them, unlike most of the charlatans offering "cures"), to be accused of "victimizing" them!
While I will admit that I didn't want to get into technicalities of patent law (it's not my area of expertise, and I doubt anyone really cares. Obviously you don't care about patent law, or you would've done a better job learning it correctly!), but I stand by my comment that the patent on blood electrification says nothing about whether it's an efficacious remedy for HIV. I was responding to the common claim (made by charlatans) that if a patent exists for something, you know it must work - that is BS. Pure BS. If you want to continue to argue patent law, do me a favor and read a book first.

"I've personally confirmed the claims of 50-100 uA of current damaging the replication mechanisms of bacteria and fungus. This is easily done with a microscope of at least 1000x and a suitable culture medium. I would like to confirm this on viruses but they are far too small to see without a scanning electron microscope. Thats not in the budget this year."

And what does this have to do with curing AIDS? This is a non-sequitor.

What sort of biological research laboratory could possibly not have electron microscopes? You do realize that many major universities offer EM laboratory courses (which you can take as a non-student for a small fee at many state schools) and some will allow you to use the lab for your pilot studies?

"I had an Antibiotic resistant Mycobacterium Avium Paratuberculosis infection which failed to a cocktail of Mycobutin, Ethambutol and Clarithromycin."

You mean Crohn's disease? I don't think the causal link between MAP + Crohn's has been conclusively established (though it's certainly suggestive). Were they actually able to culture MAP from you? (if so, that would make you the rare case) Not something I've had to deal with (or know much about) but I probably would've tried a TNF-a blocker before I would've taken Antibiotics , based on what's currently known about the connection. I'm not all that shocked it didn't work (although I also wouldn't have been surprised if it had).

"It nearly killed me, luckily a colleague had pointed out this Dr. Robert Beck protocol."

Glad you're feeling better!

"Its quite effective, I had reservations in that this Mycobacterium are Intracellular pathogens and wasn't sure if this would have any effect as they are not in the blood but rather the macrophages. However the current actually kills off the infected macrophages, the lysing releases the Mycobacterium into the blood allowing them to be 'attenuated' with the current."

If this is the case (I have no idea whether it is; I have no reason to believe that it is, other than your word [which you give no basis for, by the way. Your intuition?], and given that your words thus far have been generally "wrong, poorly informed" and ad hominem, it's not worth a whole lot), this would actually be contrary to what Dr. Beck and the holders of the patent claim: that blood electrification attenuates pathogens while leaving host tissue alone.

"While I did not have a diagnosed case of HIV,"

Strange phrasing. Do you think you have an UNdiagnosed case?! If you do, there's a simple cure for that - get tested and alleviate your fears!

"I know personally of 3 people..."

Yes, every proponent of various completely unproven cures (which remain unproven even though they've been tried zillions of times, and have been around long enough that the people selling them could have completed a pilot study with practically no funding; given that lots of people have made piles of money on such things, the lack of self-funded research is a bit unconscionable. If they do have a cure, they have a moral responsibility to use a small piece of their profits to prove it so that it can be shared with the rest of us) "personally knows" of people who have been miraculously cured with their magical substance or gizmo of choice. Nobody but them may have ever met these people; there are no records backing up their cure; you can't find mention of them anywhere; but they "personally know" them! And yet, those of us who've been in the HIV community for a decade or more, who've met thousands of HIV+ folks, many of whom have tried every so-called "cure" in the book (including the Beck protocol) have never met one who has been "cured"! And you've met three! Are you sure that maybe you're not the second coming of the Messiah and that it wasn't just meeting your holiness that cured them? Where are these cured folks? Tell them to go to a major university and offer themselves up as examples - then the Beck protocol will be taken seriously (seriously! it will!)

"...who tested positive and after the Beck protocol have PCR viral loads less than 100. (Cured)"

Inaccurate and poorly informed statement number... oh, I've lost count!
First, I have trouble trusting your veracity (given your nasty tone and disregard for fact), but I'll take this as true: viral loads less than 100 with PCR after the Beck Protocol. THIS IS NOT A CURE!!! If PCR < 100 meant that a person was "cured", then most of us would not have to take antiviral cocktails for the rest of our lives, because most of us on antivirals have PCRs < 100 (these days, <50). The major resevoirs of HIV are not in the blood. Even if you could attenuate all of the HIV in the blood, this would not rid the body of the virus.

"I'm not sure what your motivations are with regards to promoting toxic DNA chain terminator drugs"

Where did I "promote" DNA-chain terminators? I believe the only antivirals I even mentioned were PIs and NNRTIs; the only HIV drugs that are DNA chain terminators are the nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcr*iptase inhibitors. How is mentioning something "promoting" it? Oh, yeah, when you tell people that it is "a cure" when you have nothing to back it up! I think that the only person who is promoting anything here would be you! I'm merely trying to stop people from being taken in by what looks like a scam.

"which are known to actually induce AIDS like symptoms"

Whoops! Inaccurate and poorly informed statement #whatever! Yup, some of the nucleoside analogues can be toxic (not all of them; AZT, ddI, d4T, and no-longer-available-in-the-US ddC can have some very bad toxic side effects like peripheral neuropathy and pancreatitis [d-drugs] or anemia [AZT]; some of the newer nukes [which I won't name, lest I be seen as "promoting" anything] are actually not so bad because they're able to inhibit reverse transcr*iptase without inhibiting polymerase gamma), but anyone who says that the side-effets from nucleoside analogues are "AIDS like" has obviously never seen someone die of AIDS! I would actually recommend that you go to an AIDS hospice, SEE what people dying of AIDS look like, then call up your local AIDS Service Organization and ask them to meet ordinary HIV+ people who are taking meds - see the extraordinary difference. It's just about the most ridiculous statement ever. I could get into a much a more detailed discussion here about the toxic side effects of different HIV drugs, but I don't think I'll waste my time because I don't think you're informed enough to appreciate it (since you mostly seem to be here to bash drugs and promote your own product rather than actually learn anything).
If you care (I doubt you do), there have always been people (myself included) calling for regimens without the use of nucleoside analogues: these days, with [I won't say their names so as to not offend your royal highness], this seems more and more possible.


"however I suspect they are either financial"

That's funny, since antiretrovirals have cost me a huge chunk of change and haven't made me any money in return! A great deal of my efforts actually go towards trying to ensure that HIV+ folks don't get gouged (whether it's by scammers peddling phony cures OR by the drug companies. How many times have you protested the high price of HIV drugs or campaigned for increased availability in the developing world? How much money do you give to make sure that pregnant women get a $1 shot of nevirapine [that the company provides without making a profit, by the way] so that their babies don't get infected? Yeah, I thought so.)

"or a general hatred of human life"

And I suspect that you're not a very happy person! I sure don't envy you that...
I'll let my words and actions speak for themselves. I believe that if either of us has evinced a hatefulness on this forum, it has been you.