On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
Then they
should feel free to keep that a secret,
But why would they do that??? *WTF?
They would do it because they listen to nuts like
you who say HIV is harmless. If it's harmless, then
there is no reason to disclose it or take precautions
from infecting someone else. Are you that stupid
that you can't see the logical consequences of
believing that HIV is harmless?
The consequences are simple: You get to remain healthy and alive.
For example, the results of this on-going TAMU study should be
interesting:
http://hlknweb.tamu.edu/articles/hiv_no_meds
not disclose
it to sexual partners, for example, because, it's just
harmless.
But it *is* harmless!
And again, this is why you and the other denialists are
more dangerous than holocaust deniers. Listening to you
is encouragement to have unprotected sex, to not
disclose that you are HIV infected, because according
to you, HIV is harmless.
I have unprotected sex all the time. Because I have no fear of HIV.
And I have ZERO chance of ever getting AIDS, because I don't abuse
drugs, I eat properly, I don't drink heavily, I get a good amount of
sleep, I don't get tested for HIV, I don't have sex with other men, I
don't take AIDS drugs (AIDS by prescription!), etc., in other words, I
don't burn the candle at both ends.
On the other hand, I don't tell others how they should live their
lives. If someone wants to live his life fearful of a harmless
retrovirus that couldn't possibly cause 30 different diseases(!),
that's for him to decide.
It's the *drugs* that aren't harmless, you dip****.
Yes, so harmful that today patients on AIDS drugs
are living long lives instead of dying in a year like they
were when there were no AIDS drugs.
Yes, because today they're giving them less than 50% the dosage of the
80s and early 90s, and to perfectly healthy people. But they still
die, just more slowly that in the past.
We had 30% of babies born to mothers infected with
HIV being infected. Today, using AIDS drugs prior to
birth, that infection rate has dropped to just a few percent.
Powerful proof, except to a denialist.
Q3: If Azt is so toxic, how is it that the incidence of infected
children has decreased from 25% to 8% (in Italy and in France) in
babies born to mothers who had been treated with Azt during pregnancy?
A3: Treatment of HIV-positive, pregnant women with the DNA chain
terminators has reduced the incidence of HIV in their babies from 25%
to 8% in France and Italy as well as in the US. This is to be expected
from a drug that was designed to kill cells including those in which
HIV replicates. AZT was developed over 30 years ago to kill cells for
cancer chemotherapy.
The first problem with this hypothetical triumph of anti-HIV treatment
is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The second more serious problem
that AZT induces abortion, and generates birth defects in humans and
causes cancer in animals born to AZT-treated mothers. For example, a
study published in 1994 found that among 104 AZT treated HIV positive
women, 8 aborted spontaneously, 8 had to be aborted "therapeutically",
and 8 had babies with birth defects such as cavities in the chest,
heart defects, extra fingers, misplaced ears, triangular faces,
misformed spine, and albinism (Kumar et al., J. AIDS, vol. 7, p1034
(1994), cited in IAV).
http://www.duesberg.com/faq.html
I'd sure like to see a long-term, follow-up study regarding the health
of those poor babies...
It's the lifestyle that isn't harmless.
Some lifestyles certainly lead to becoming infected
with HIV and developing AIDS. In other cases,
like the soccer mom infected from a husband or
a baby born to an HIV infected mother, their lifestyle
had nothing to do with it.
Easy to explain:
http://rethinkingaids.com/quotes/tes...-positive.html
Not to mention the FACT that HIV antibodies can be tranmitted from
mother to fetus, etc.
The fact that you can't figure this stuff out by yourself, well, it's
priceless.
In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. *Only the *antibodies* are found!
Again, the phoney strawman is raised.
That's not a straw man. That's a fact. You can look it up.
Following that denialst crap, then hepatitis, syphilis, tuberculosis,
lyme,
pick your disease are not caused by the underlying virus or
bacteria either, because exactly the same types of tests are used.
Now that is a straw man! And the same type of tests are NOT used.
hepititis what?
syphillis = scrapings
tuberculosis = fluorescence microscopy (auramine-rhodamine staining)
lyme = antibodies are tested for, but not relied upon for a diagnosis
because:
"Antibodies, however, can be false indicators of disease, since they
can persist for years after the disease is cured."
http://www.medicinenet.com/lyme_disease/page3.htm
Read that sentence to yourself about a dozen times, maybe it'll
eventually sink in.
Nah, you still won't get it.
There's just no there, there.
--
Dogman
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman