| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
meandering Registered: 01/30/12 Posts: 1,306 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
I have a well-written, thoroughly examined, and entirely logical, rational, and literal documentation of curing treatment for a severe and affecting and very debilitating ailment that is officially labeled in its field of science as having no known cure, at this point. Correspondingly, doctors who are approached for treatment of it commonly say they are unqualified to treat such, and even that there is no possible recourse offered through recognized medical institutions.
I didn't really work at the cure, it rather decided to form itself using my head as its incubator, maybe over 2 years ago (so this isn't another high rambling, or rather, it isn't a rambling that only exists due to being high), and every so often I'd notice random stuff that seemed to hold similarities to other stuff, eventually leading to a long string of things, and then, there is was already in order with complete start to finish linearity. The write-up is near-complete and will be with a couple early paragraphs of nothing really clever, and it is sound, and has been tested with success - and it is logical that the same results will be experienced in many due to it resulting from conditions (which are idiosyncratic to the ailment and therefore shared by its sufferers) met with a certain interactions, enacting a certain effect. The physiological working of this interaction show that this does happen, and is also exactly what should sensibly happen as the conclusion to the process. From here, I don't know what to do. It's not an alternate cure, or theory if it pleases, it's the one and only, and it's a highly effective one - but requires something things of the patient beyond typical pill swallowing: Some degrees of discipline, the time to properly make aware oneself, and preparedness and willingness to do it as most benefits. I don't know what monetizable options apply to a release of such, and how potential monetizable options can be firmly enacted. It's definitely of value to individuals and also its own field of science/self-explanation, and I think it will be also so in possibly lending unconsidered-realization to other fields that have a relateable component, opening realization of previously unknown medical applications and possibilities regarding the sole medication that it is most effective with, and almost solely effective with. I have a partially assumed idea that the instance of finding of real cures does net people money, but maybe that's through indirect methods, like endorsements, patents, public appearances, selling books, wearing a really smart combination of real smart glasses with a real smart vest and doing a confidence-suggesting arms-grossing chest pose maybe with gang sign, yadda. My interests are: 1: to become aware and understanding of monetizable options for such a paper, and 2. also become informed on how to release it as one solid announcement that reaches the most possible people in in the best possible manner. For a cure for a condition of human disease, and also in general, I think that it's not long at all, utactually very small short for what it is! It's resultingly seemingly short (to me who has no frame of reference anyhow... and its shortness is defined as somewhere between 2 and 4 single-space normal document pages) is due to this described solution being able to, and making use of known practices and concepts and the straightforward physiological process (probably normal things, but, again, no frame of reference). Some aspects need to be explained as new understanding, but their needs are minimal. So, I'm aware of three potential options: have peer-reviewed prior to publication, pester magazines asking for publication, sell it to someone interested in establishing a regime or program that they make money off of (since the methods themselves are not patent-able). This seems as though far-off from a complete list of potential options, which I'd like to form a procedure from to create the most solid singular release - since it's probably a one-time submission from of mine, has a fully serious intent, and if I miss something once, it might water down compensatory actions and muddle/soften the announce platform that this cure-for-some uses to make itself known, and which possibly should also act as a cohesive and familiar single presentation for people to reference and expand from. Putting it short, I'm lost and without much of a clue on what possibilities and standards are, and what is effective and benefiting to myself and the information. I don't know if simply finding, presenting and explaining a cure is somehow pretty directly monetizable without using patented resources, but if it is, I don't want to fail to make use of it. I guess I could just submit it to a few teen science magazines as previous edition feedback and have it appear in the comments section, gaining a reputation as the idiot's cure. Edited by something cool (12/05/13 02:35 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 12/15/12 Posts: 684 Last seen: 4 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
If its like a tangible object or a process I think you could patent, but probably will not be able to afford to do it on your own. You can make it available to the public by publishing a manuscript if you can get it published. Chances are you can get your manuscript accepted somewhere, but whether or not it is in a good journal is another question. If you want to collaborate with someone than can afford to do something with this or help you you probably have to write a proposal which is typically more along the lines of 20-30 pages, but can be as long or short as you want but you should still follow the standard format. Proposal are typically sent to foundations or government departments, but it is probably your best bet to get someone to take you seriously.
Most people don't keep their shit to themselves for ever at some point you have to hand it to people in the field for review in confidence they wont steal it. People typically don't steal this way(intentionally) because they have a reputation to maintain. If you think it is good hand it out for review to some people. You want people that can give you harsh criticism. Eventually you have to make this jump. Hell if it is only a few paragraphs PM it to me and I will review it. I worked in medical research and have looked at quite a few manuscripts and proposals. Ill tear it apart for you. Edited by dr.alkaline (12/06/13 12:09 AM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 06/02/03 Posts: 26,672 |
| ||||||
|
So in one thread, you complain about how drug research is fatally flawed due to parties seeking financial incentives, and two days later you claim having a cure to something but you won't release it for the public good because you're looking for a way to make money off it. Right.
Either way, given your theories we discussed earlier this week, I'm extremely skeptical about what you've come up with anyway, so the above point is pretty much moot. My advice to you is to simply put your idea out there, anywhere (on here, on a blog, on the local news - whatever) so that it can be confronted with reality. If you've somehow stumbled on something useful, you're doing humanity a favor by sharing this knowledge. And if you have actually come up with more nonsense, then you at least get the chance of seeing the fatal flaws of your theory pointed out so that it may help you in future idea generation.
| |||||||
|
meandering Registered: 01/30/12 Posts: 1,306 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
To immediately address that post of yours, I'm bump-replicating a paragraph which is otherwise integrated as a part of the more significantly-sized post:
Quote: As those creative-wonderings and open questions didn't masquerade as being theories (after all, theories come bearing information rather than requesting it, and probably don't frequently end in question marks), and as my ramblings are obvious ramblings that also are normally labeled as rambles, a claim of cure that's labeled as a claim of cure (comparable to the questions being presented as questions, and the ramblings being labeled as rambles) doesn't seemingly support a notion that there's a subsequent cause for doubt regarding its title on the basis' of other presented types of thought-text that, themselves, weren't mislabeled. I think that those other not-falsely-presented forms of writing rather encourage the default to be an inclination towards acceptance that the claim of cure would have been called so out of the same inclination of mine to present accurate subject type-identifications. And regardless of the end-status of the claim, it is all-the-same exclusively requesting solid procedure information for proper presentation of a cure. If I didn't have personal experiences proving that it can do this, I guess and expect that the title would be different than definitively claiming it to be a cure. The physiological interaction is logical to suggest that it could be one, but I think that short of direct fully-affirming personal experiences, it would at most have been called a "claim of cure" or "probable cure?", and similar. The decided nature of the title is because any less confident a presentation would be me pretending to not have the experience that verified its successful use, and I think that I would experience some damage to my psyche to know that I had no confidence in what I fully knew I knew, through multiple experiences, rational deduction, and physiological process support, each individually corroborating the claim. I expected doubt, as doubt/dismissal are the universal natural responses to anyone making unverified (and typically verifiable, too) claims that are perceived to be of the sort that is positive-personal-accomplishment -------------------------------- My pause of time to consider isn't money or any one-issue related, but for a slew of questions caused by having no experience to reference for this. No other simultaneously-questioned element is readied in any more of a "go" state, so it hasn't even been considered whether I would possibly hold solely on account of monetary interests of not. Money questions are valid though, and, I'm reiterating, nothing's been held up on account of this factor. I'm also the worst sufferer of the ailment in focus that I've been made aware of or heard about, anywhere, including from collections of sufferers' reports. I've been intensely suffering for over a decade. If I wait the additional time, I can justify that through knowing that everyone else is bearing it a hell of a lot better than I. I also expect no quick responses or reactions to a release, and the countless experiences of terrible treatment from the most surprising of sources (typically those in charge of treatments) leaves me as putting extremely low stock in expectations of others, and an impaired-ability to feel convinced that something positive might result, regardless. Instead, the reverse has been true for me for many years now: avoid testing waters and making conclusion-bringing efforts to avoid the extremely painful disappointment and additional loss of self-strength that I haven't been able to afford for many years, that has always come and is anticipated as being guaranteed to come from all future efforts. And I did partially share the concept with somebody, someone who makes their living doing what they can to treat that ailment, who I've had periodic contact with over my suffering which they've called "Heartbreaking" and asked and been given to use as needed, maybe for their practice-promotion or bringing attention to the issue, I don't know. Since sending the partially-explained process forward, including with note that I don't really see any profit to be had in the cure (knowing that he makes his money by treating this and other chronic pains), I haven't heard back a word. A follow up email also hasn't been responded to. Not the most motivating reaction, and more of the "impaired-ability to feel convinced that something positive might result" thought-strengthening variety. And he just previously looking into what he could do to help me regarding a very important diagnosis. I guess the prospect of inexpensive treatment could have appeared as a threat to his livelihood and he didn't want to engage in that conversation, or he could suddenly decided something else which warranted abrupt cessation of contact with no explanation as to why. No clue, really. But there I took a chance to try a little, and, precisely on cue, disappointment, confusion, loss of confidence is given in return. It never, ever, ever plays out any differently. Any exerted portion of self that is exerted in a dared instance of hope after a regaining some strength to try something again after a long-term exertion-shutdown that's always caused by a previous attempt rejections, and sabotages by insanely selfish people, is really granted to be lost without retrieval. This 2-year formation doesn't consists of questions or wonderings, so is inherently dissimilar to "theories" that I don't think I've called theories but, if asked, I would label as creative-wonderings. I don't regard the process to be of the same sphere as under-influence tangents of curiosity (despite those tangents having rooted basis in some impetus, out of which they ramble, and after multiple ramblings the persistent pieces sometimes give a solid piece of insight into something), which are valid in their own right, but they don't spawn from much more than momentary reactions to current environmental stimuli. I understand my own character to be such that a genuine theory won't be presented by me without being labeled as a theory, and a body of text that is not identified as being of some certain serious-intent type will not have been intended as one. This process appeared as already-completed chunks of information that I couldn't determine a purpose for on their own, and they had no rough edges that could really be engaged with. Sort of like slippery and impenetrable insulated cubes that I couldn't access the insides of, but could just observe the appearance from the outside. I had no knowledge that they were completed, or even thoughts that returned to them apart from when they mandated it, until they all slid into an order and effectively became one long process-detailing item, and this was probably a month to two months ago, and I thought it was neat that it was finished, but I didn't have the available focus to take a good look at it then, and still probably can't appreciate it as a whole, but can follow from piece to piece and recognize its character that way. As I said, I thought it was completed a couple months or whatever ago - and it was then appearing as a newly appearing now-ordered single solid length of itself, and I left it as an assumption without really having motivation or focus to know how to evaluate that assumption. But that assumption was naturally corrected while recording the streaming dictation that, maybe a week or a week and a half ago, started flowing, and I instinctively started recording. It was an extremely rapid process of churning out already-assembled thoughts or thought sections, which came piecemeal and in seemingly random order (similar to their initial mentally precipitating manifestations), but they, procedurally, made room and adjusted spacing as needed (no re-orderings or re-editing, though, only gap creations which entirely new sections were streamlined into, resulting in a seamless knit job), or I did under direction without pause or review of anything, and they seem to have connected themselves in all perfectly fitting spots, in a much more refined a fashion than I normally expect from myself. While effortlessly but very rapidly Swyping the flowing dictation that flowed at a pretty matched rapidity of my Swyping (though I think it's possible I could've trailed in places and missed some small complimentary details, which maybe just strengthened understanding of an area, because there didn't seem to be left any gaps in the process), some maybe 1.5 sentence or so piece of new information flowed in the dictation (I think I recall pointedly noticing the specific new info then, but the subsequent impact was much more attention grabbing than the actual info, which itself is now just properly an embedded part of the singular process) and its newly arrived presence immediately instigated a sudden-shift in experienced boldness of the same single piece process, but no change in experienced dimensions. I think it was mostly like a saturation intensification, like going from value 30 to value 85, resulting in much deeper and richer sense of presence for the single-piece mental item. I'm sure there's lots more that can potentially continue to be manifested until the point that I no longer have a verifiable cure just for many who aren't myself, but also one that's known to be effective for me. I don't have expectations, though, as if expectation or choice or will seems to have played a role thus far. As for whether it's functional, I know that it strongly can be, and maybe is more most, from multiple older personal experiences, when I didn't understand the process that resulted in the improvement, and repeated attempts that were desperate to experience similar ended up being mostly equivalent to useless flailing around. My condition is now progressed far beyond that time, and I think it would have been a laughably easy cure even just over 2 years ago if I was aware of the process and not just small-held pieces which I chased after. I don't know if this process is for me now, and I'm not rushing to make use of it at this time. But I know of no near-similarly degressed entirely absurd state of this ailment to lump in the same category as myself, and I can't to otherwise than simply know from then-mostly-ignorant experiences that it is, or at minimum, can be overwhelmingly effective in treating less severe cases. The recent documentation of the process doesn't include the first possibly few paragraphs, simply because they weren't provided in the same flowing dictation, but I'm sure I can accurately fill them in on my own, though they might bear a discrepancy in eloquent fluidity in contrast to the rest of the document. None of the information which ever mentally manifested, and which eventually, and only recently, simultaneously aligned-and-merged into its singular-item identity, ever experienced modification or penetration of any sort, and was only ever further accompanied by additional sporadically manifesting individually standing blocks until the recent moment that they suddenly quickly self-merged and became what they now are. Edited by something cool (12/06/13 12:03 PM)
| |||||||
|
Mad Scientist Registered: 03/02/05 Posts: 13,372 |
| ||||||
|
Writing a book and trying to sell it is probably your best bet.
A peer-reviewed journal article doesn't pay anything. It only makes the information public. Getting a drug or device approved is not realistic for an individual. I'm not familiar enough with the patent process to know whether you can patent relatively abstract ideas such as: Eat two oranges, then run, then meditate, etc. Lastly, I'd encourage you to consider the "evidence" you have that your process works. Simply claiming it works, or saying it worked on you and a friend is not overly convincing to a customer or investor. -------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Is the HIV virus a hoax? ( |
8,895 | 42 | 05/08/03 04:38 PM by Baby_Hitler | ||
![]() |
lava lamp cure(wax lamp) | 1,236 | 7 | 08/10/04 01:54 AM by funkymonk | ||
![]() |
Viruses affecting Windows and not macintosh? | 554 | 1 | 09/09/04 12:26 PM by Seuss | ||
![]() |
Electronic nose 'sniffs out cancer' | 928 | 2 | 05/08/03 06:01 AM by TackleBerry | ||
![]() |
Memantine -dissociative entheogenic pharm [Alzheimer's] | 6,180 | 11 | 08/23/04 04:55 AM by Asante | ||
![]() |
USA Patriot Act on Network Security Practice | 1,646 | 1 | 11/27/01 10:08 PM by Ishmael | ||
![]() |
Fla. company 1st to market ID microchips for human | 15,417 | 6 | 03/06/02 09:23 PM by MrNobody | ||
![]() |
A home-built ram drive? | 1,319 | 1 | 07/08/04 05:23 PM by HagbardCeline |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner 495 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


