AIDS cured back in 1997! Patent still unavailable to the public.

AIDS cure patented in 1997, US patent #5676977 (LOOK IT UP). Labeled Tetramusil/ Imusil, the cure is a solution of tetrasilver tetroxide, which contains molecules of one monovalent and two trivalent silver ions, and is dirt-cheap to synthesize! The solution becomes active in the bloodstream when it bonds with pathogens, which act as a conductive medium for the disparate electrical charges of the silver ions. The molecule literally electrocutes the pathogen to death, and the resulting divalent silver molecules remain bonded to the destroyed pathogen, deilvering it to the liver. The solution is non-toxic, and although it does cause stress to the liver, it does no permanent damage. One injection is enough to cure 40ppm of a pathogen. Clinical trials have been conducted on persons with AIDS and persons with E. Coli, with an 80% success rate. However, the cure remains unavailable to the public. WHY?!?


Excerpted from the link above: "Clinical testing was performed at Exetec Lab, SA in Honduras under the supervision of Dr. L Roland Valenzuela. Thirty patients were selected from three etiological AIDS groups, 10 for each group namely, Candidiasis, Wasting Syndrome and p. carinii pneumonia. Each patient was given an intravenous infusion of Imusil administered over a three hour period. All patients experienced temperature elevation within 48 hours of administering the Imusil, which was indicative that the immune system was now functioning along with the fact that all patients also started to have dramatic increases in their white blood cell counts. At the end of 30 days of observation, all patients were cured of AIDS. All patients presenting Wasting Syndrome were completely cured of the Syndrome; the average patient gaining approximately one half pound per day. Three patients were completely cured of their pneumonia. Because the protocol was changed from direct injection to slow i.v. infusion of the Imusil, there were no side effects of hepatomegaly."


Additinoal sources:

Views: 1821


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Frankie Dapper on December 6, 2011 at 3:44am

John, I would normally have that knee-jerk reaction-oh that is conspiracy bullshit. However this might be where the innocent inmate says I did not commit the crime.

Comment by John Camilli on December 6, 2011 at 2:38am

"Also, the patent office is not a scientific authority on efficacy of drugs (or in any scientific field for that matter)."

IT WAS YOUR SOURCE!!!  You're the one who used it to try and make a point. And it was the only citation in your source that addressed the drug's efficacy at all. Demonize my phraseology all you like, but don't YOU find it odd that after 14 years we haven't done any more trials to verify if this simple solution could work or not? The FDA report didn't say there was evidence against the drug, they said there wasn't any damn evidence! That's not strange to you?


Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence, but in this case no one is looking in to getting any of that evidence. WHY? No peer-reviewed studies are even being funded. It's just being completely ignored. Normally people jump all over big claims like this, to try and prove them wrong, but all we hear from this claim is silence. I looked up sources for over an hour, and they are ALL amateur sources. Nobody with money will touch this, which makes perfect sense. There's way more money to be made from sick people than from healthy people. And it's just a bonus for most of our rich, white pharmaceutical companies that AIDS tends to kill more gays and minorities than straight caucasians. And, no, I don't think sincere scientists are simply avoiding it, I think they are being incentivized NOT to check into it. Do a little critical thinking yourself man. Can you find any articles that empirically prove that this shit doesn't work? I have specifically looked for those articles and I can't find a single one. That's pretty damn weird, don'tcha think? Normally if someone makes claims about a treatment, others look into it to see if it could be harmful, or to see if it's a scam. In this case, none of that.


As for the rest of that crap, I already read it. In fact, I obviously read further into your source than you did, as I checked all the citations pertinent to its coverage of tetrasilver tetroxide (that's what's in the treatment, btw, and I've listed the claims and the evidence for your benefit too, as well as the information on the patent number which is really all you need to find out about the origins and specifics of the claimed treatment)


As for the idea that you wouldn't use the phrase "miracle cure" if you were a real professional. Maybe not for most maladies, but for AIDS or HIV? You sure as hell would use that phrase if the treatment worked.







Comment by Blue Sage on December 5, 2011 at 11:25pm


This type of evidence is always unreliable.

Personal testimonies are notoriously untrustworthy. Usually there is no way of knowing whether the people in question ever existed, let alone whether they were helped by the therapy. There have been cases of people being paid to pretend they’ve been cured. And even if a handful of people really did get better after they took the treatment, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it works; the improvements may just have been a coincidence. Many negative reports may have been left out of the promotional material.

Proving that HIV has been eradicated isn’t easy. Changes in symptoms or weight gain are not sufficient, and neither is a viral load test. Even if the test can’t detect HIV in the bloodstream (perhaps because the person has been on antiretroviral therapy), this doesn’t mean the virus has been cleared from all parts of the body. Much more thorough investigation is needed.

Beware of conspiracy theorists

Many sellers of fake medicines fall back on conspiracy theories to explain why their products haven’t undergone proper testing. They say that government agencies and the medical profession seek to suppress alternative treatments to safeguard the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

This kind of allegation is a sure sign of a charlatan. In reality, leading scientists investigate all kinds of therapies that can’t be patented. For example, the U.S. government has funded research into using generic drugs (such as valproic acid) and human hormones (such as interleukin-2) as aids to ridding the body of HIV infection.

Do some research
Any important medical breakthrough will be reported in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature, Science or The Lancet. The mainstream media will pick up the story and leading experts will express their opinions.

Simply typing the name of a supposed HIV cure into an Internet search engine and reading some of the resulting web pages will quickly establish whether it has widespread support. It is also worth searching an online medical database such as PubMed for scientific studies and reviews.

Consult an expert
Always talk to a doctor or other health professional before trying any medical treatment. If you need more information or a second opinion, try contacting a reputable health organisation or telephone helpline. Several American states have AIDS Fraud Task Forces dedicated to combating quackery, and local Food and Drug Administration offices can provide details of any action taken against a product or its manufacturer. Similar agencies operate in most other parts of the world.

Comment by Blue Sage on December 5, 2011 at 11:21pm

Again, this has "conspiracy theory" written all over it. Phrases similar to "suspicious lack of interest" are typical of many conspiracy theories. Such arguments don't count as evidence. Also, the patent office is not a scientific authority on efficacy of drugs (or in any scientific field for that matter).

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where are the scientific publications in high-impact peer-reviewed scientific journals proving that this is an effective AIDS cure? Patents are not scientific publications, therefore don't count as valid evidence. Moreover, even if the results are published in such journals, have the claimed results been replicated independently by other groups of scientists? We're talking about Noble-level scientific claims here. Do you honestly think scientists who dedicate their lives to such causes would simply ignore such a supposedly effective and well-known "drug"?

Please apply a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking when it comes to such extraordinary claims before giving people false hope. It's extremely easy to fall for such conspiracy theories, especially for non-experts in the relevant scientific field. These suggestions (from that page) should help:

How to spot fake AIDS cures and treatments

As already stated, there is no proven cure for HIV or AIDS. The best advice is to steer clear of anyone claiming otherwise. For those who find themselves tempted, here are a few pointers for spotting quack therapies.

Who makes the claims?

Try to find some information about the person or people promoting the product. What are their credentials? If someone claims to be a doctor then they should say what type of doctor, and where they got their qualifications.

What claims do they make?

Look at how the product is presented. Reputable scientists and doctors don’t use sensational terms such as “miracle breakthrough”. Also watch for evidence of poor scientific understanding; for example, no expert would refer to HIV as “the HIV virus” or “the AIDS virus”.

It is very rare for a medicine to be 100% effective for all patients. It is highly implausible that a single product could cure a wide range of unrelated diseases such as cancer, asthma, AIDS and diabetes. A real scientist would be extremely wary of making such claims.

What’s in the cure?

Many inventors won’t reveal what goes into their so-called cures. Ask yourself why this might be. Could it be that their methods wouldn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny?

It is important to remember that words like “natural” and “herbal” are no guarantee of safety. After all, hemlock and ricin (derived from castor beans) are both entirely natural and extremely toxic. As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration points out,

“Any product – synthetic or natural – potent enough to work like a drug is going to be potent enough to cause side effects.”

What evidence do they offer?

To gain the approval of medical authorities, any new treatment must undergo very extensive testing. Countless products destroy HIV in the laboratory but are ineffective or dangerous when used by people. A proper trial involves a large group of volunteers divided randomly into two sets. One half uses the test product and the other receives a placebo (a harmless pretend medicine that looks like the real thing). During the trial, neither the scientists nor the volunteers should know who is getting which treatment. Afterwards, the results for the two groups are compared to see if the test product performed better than the placebo.

Virtually all promoters of “AIDS cures” cannot provide any data from large-scale, randomised human trials. Instead they rely on anecdotes, personal testimonies, laboratory experiments or small-scale trials with no placebo comparison. This type of evidence is always un

Comment by John Camilli on December 5, 2011 at 10:29pm

This page addresses the use of tetrasilver tetroxide with one paragraph. Here is what the links used in that paragraph say about it:


From the FDA: "...there is a lack of adequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for OTC use in the treatment or prevention of any disease..." Now that's from 2011, which is 14 years after the method was patented. Why is there still a serious lack of research on it at this point? I would think that if someone claimed to have a cure for AIDS, that some serious fucking research should be done to verify or invalidate that claim. Wouldn't you?


From the Voice of America report on the ban of tretrasilver in Zambia: "In response to the controversy over Tetrasil, the government of Zambia has banned a local chemist - a sister company to the tabloid that published the claims - from selling the drug. It has also banned any press advertisements for it." It does not say that any research was done to check the efficacy of the claims. It was simply banned.


From the EPA report: "Adverse effects to human health are not anticipated from the use of this product." This is a pesticide report on tertrasilver used as a swimming pool cleaner. It makes no mention of whether the solution could be useful as a treatment. Again with the suspicious lack of interrest in a drug that claims to cure AIDS.


The report from the patent office is the only one that addresses its efficacy as a treatment, and it clearly supports the claims! "All the other candidiasis syndrome people who previously did not respond to the indicated medications subsequently responded after the Tetrasil treatment. Further evidence of the recovery of the AIDS patients manifested itself 30 days after the initial injection when white blood cell counts were taken. They are shown in Table I under the WBC column, which gives the initial and final WBC. All candidiasis patients showed a dramatic increase in their white blood cell counts, indicative of the restoration of their immunity systems."


So those are your own links and, had you actually read them, you would see that they provide stark support for the idea that this treatment not only works but is being actively suppressed. Got anything else to add?

Comment by Blue Sage on December 5, 2011 at 9:25pm

Sorry, but this looks like typical conspiracy theory nonsense. Please read this for more info on this topic:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service