Children of a New Dream

[Raeus and Ashra]

Yes I did, but I didn't think I needed to post;

We would also like to correct a statement in our article. Although we state that "some of the maternal HIV-1 sequences were closely related to the principal sequence from the child's samples" (page 835, righthand column, lines 35 to 37), as we state elsewhere in the article, it is not possible at this time to establish a relation between the mother's virus and that of the infant. This fact has no bearing on the central conclusion of our report; the infant was infected, as evidenced by the isolation of identical virus on two different occasions, and then became free of virus. The possibility that the virus was maternally derived has not been formally confirmed and is currently being addressed.

You still aren't getting it. His fundamental argument about codons is completely wrong. I'm not going to argue basic biology with you about genetic code, or amino acids, on which his claims are completely off base. But posting stuff like that, and not even bothering to do a bit of fact-checking on something you learn in Grade 10 biology? Come on.

I'm not saying what Drunvalo Melchizedek is correct nor do I wholy believe in it, I am merely posting circulating knowledge that invokes thought and interest. If there are any fallacies, I'm grateful to hear different perspectives, others thoughts and alternate opinions. I can "get" that his fundamnetal argument about codons could be wrong, but I still do believe in people who once had HIV, are now hiv-negative.

Like this case posted in my original post;

Andrew Stimpson, 25, tested positive for AIDS in 2002, now he tests negative, says a spokesperson for the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare Trust, London, UK. The Healthcare Trust said he needs to come back for further tests so they can find out exactly what happened.

Doctors would like him to come back for more tests so that they can find out exactly how he cured himself.

Currently, HIV/AIDS is an incurable disease which has killed millions of people around the globe.

According to Andrew, he feels truly special and lucky.

What's different between Andrews case and some others claims in the past? The main difference is that the medical community is taking Andrew's case seriously. His initial test, when he was positive was done at a recognised, respected hospital. His latest test, where he was clear of AIDS, was done in the same hospital. Experts speculate that Andrew may be carrying the cure - it may be within his body. Perhaps his body has produced some antibody we could engineer.

The hospital that carried out the tests on Andrew were adamant that the two tests were correct and that there was no identity mix up - they carried DNA checks to make sure it was Andrew.

Is there nothing of worth in this?

[Leica]

Yes I did, but I didn't think I needed to post:

We would also like to correct a statement in our article. Although we state that "some of the maternal HIV-1 sequences were closely related to the principal sequence from the child's samples" (page 835, righthand column, lines 35 to 37), as we state elsewhere in the article, it is not possible at this time to establish a relation between the mother's virus and that of the infant. This fact has no bearing on the central conclusion of our report; the infant was infected, as evidenced by the isolation of identical virus on two different occasions, and then became free of virus. The possibility that the virus was maternally derived has not been formally confirmed and is currently being addressed.

For those who don't bother fully reading something.

I did fully read it. And there's no need to bold that part because I didn't say the authors were wrong, I said that they published a report and had not considered all possibilities. Additionally in the corrections another writer pointed out that the child exhibited no signs of the virus during a test between two other tests where the child did.

The point here is that just because something is published in the Scientific Journal doesn't mean that it's accurate, and the authors specifically said themselves that there are other possible explanations.

As for the crap science part, I'd point to the part of your original article where they classify the two types of children:

There appears to be two separate groups, incredibly psychic and amazing.

Tell me that's not crap science and I'll tell you you've been smoking more than you normally do

[Raeus and Ashra]

As for the crap science part, I'd point to the part of your original article where they classify the two types of children:

There appears to be two separate groups, incredibly psychic and amazing.

Tell me that's not crap science and I'll tell you you've been smoking more than you normally do

giggle~

I don't think Drunvalo Melchizedk is a scientist, nor does that matter. I believe he was just placing his opinion out there on an Event(s) that did occur. His conclusions are just that, "His." Nowhere is anyone saying, "Believe this!" or "Believe that!" These are personal thoughts on real World Events. One can think whatever one chooses to on these subjects and are here for speculation at best.

edit; I think "incredibly psychic and amazing" are descriptive adjectives applied to both groups.

[Orim]

it sounds like magic to me