If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV causes AIDS. Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on. The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the immune system. Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed, and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes, and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination. So keep on wishing for a vaccine; it ain't gonna happen. You can write that down. -- 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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Aug 2, 2:47*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] You and the denialists should be doing that now. *Doug said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV causes AIDS. Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on. The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing suicide), Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. Just like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed. It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept the most basic proven facts. or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the immune system. Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed, and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes, and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination. Still waiting for the study that shows AIDS is caused by drugs. Of course that won't be forthcoming because all the studies show exactly the opposite. You can be a drug user, have many sexual partners, poor diet, hemophilia, blood transfusions, etc and unless you are infected with HIV you don't develop AIDS. If you are infected with HIV and go untreated in the next decade or so you have a high probability of developoing AIDS. Really simple science. The fact that HIV causes AIDS is entirely consistent with and explains the transmission of AIDS in: gay men with many partners IV drug users hemophiliacs like Ryan White blood transfusion recipients like Arthur Ashe prostitutes soccer moms with a partner who is HIV+ heterosexuals in Africa babies lab workers accidentally infected 6 patients of the FL dentist who was HIV+ We know it's HIV spread by blood and sexual contact and from mother to child at birth. The denialists? Well they have all kinds of different alleged reasons and they are all different, yet sharing one common thread in that they are pathetic and totally unsupported by science of any kind. We're supposed to believe that the exact same disease, characterized by observed total destruction of CD4 cells occurs in gay men from one reason and in babies from an entirely different reason. And that both of those and all the others affected by AIDS on the list surfaced in the early 80s at the same time. And not just in the USA, but around the world. Then unable to come up with even pathetic attempts at explanations anymore for some of the groups, they proceed to just deny that some of those groups have AIDS at all. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on. The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing suicide), Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. Just like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed. It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept the most basic proven facts. "People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it possible to make HIV kill its host cell. AIDS researchers actually use t-cells to grow the virus in their reacearch because both live together very compatibly. It was this notion that initially made Duesberg and over 600 other scientist, including 181 that have advanced degrees question the whole thing in the first place. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Viruses that kill a cell couldn’t cause cancer. If HIV were a killer cell then those with AIDS indication diseases would not have some form of cancer as some of the defining diseases do." or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the immune system. Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed, and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes, and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination. Still waiting for the study that shows AIDS is caused by drugs. And I'm still waiting for the study that proves that HIV causes AIDS. yawn The fact that HIV causes AIDS is entirely consistent with and explains the transmission of AIDS in: gay men with many partners because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc. See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc., IV drug users HIV is not necessary. hemophiliacs like Ryan White have taken impure Factor for years, causing their immune systems' destruction blood transfusion recipients like Arthur Ashe people get *antibodies* from blood transfusions prostitutes only if they abuse drugs soccer moms with a partner who is HIV+ false positives, liars, etc. heterosexuals in Africa Banqui definition of AIDS (but you're prabably a racist, too, and think Africans are sex fiends) babies babies get antibodies passed to them from their mother lab workers accidentally infected only if they take AIDS drugs do they ever get AIDS 6 patients of the FL dentist who was HIV+ they didn't get AIDS until they started to take AIDS drugs We know it's HIV spread by blood and sexual contact and from mother to child at birth. HIV *ANTIBODIES*! Sheesh. What a maroon. Someone who obviously doesn't understand what antibodies are, and aren't, should never try to understand HIV, AIDS, the germ theory of disease, etc. Someone like you, Trader Boy. -- 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
Dogman wrote:
" wrote: You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV causes AIDS. Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on. Efforts to create a vaccine have all failed so far. That's not the same thing as a prediction that none will ever work. Time will tell. If I understand correctly HIV is the first RNA virus where attempts have been made to make a vaccine. A long learning curve is to be expected. It took centuries of science for the first DNA virus vaccine to be introduced. As someone who is not infected, who avoids infection and also avoids the other vectors, I'm in no hurry. I personally can afford to be in no hurry. Being in a hurry can't help anyways. Being in a hurry does not help science. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the immune system. That's also how DNA viruses function. The successful ones do not kill their host cells. The most successful ones get included in the cell's genetic material. Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed, and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes, and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination. Sure, if that happened. New people would stop being HIV positive. Fewer not none, actually, given how herd immunity and statistically uncertain personal immunity from vaccination works. The deaths from currently sick people would occur. New deaths would either continue unabated or track the new infection rate. And then there would be certainty. Time will tell. It's how science works. Immature science includes discussion of concensus because concensus gives the best guess in the absence of cetainty. Eventually science reaches such a close approximation to certainty that opinion is irrelevant and concensus is irrelevant. Medicine in general and AIDS treatment in specific are far from that level. I tend to favor the concensus opinion but I know what it means to need to poll for a concensus in the first place. It means the issue is not yet resolved. Okay, so a large error bar then. I'm okay with large error bars once I know they are there. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: Dogman wrote: " wrote: You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV causes AIDS. Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on. Efforts to create a vaccine have all failed so far. That's not the same thing as a prediction that none will ever work. Time will tell. My prediction that none will work is based on the idea that HIV is already harmless. It doesn't kill cells. It's a retrovirus, and retroviruses depend on the host cell for its very existence, so to kill it off? That's suicide, and it (HIV) would have ceased to exist eons ago. If I understand correctly HIV is the first RNA virus where attempts have been made to make a vaccine. A long learning curve is to be expected. Well, that's certainly a good excuse. And it certainly helps to keep the funding coming, huh? Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the immune system. That's also how DNA viruses function. The successful ones do not kill their host cells. The most successful ones get included in the cell's genetic material. Let's stick to retroviruses, eh? Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed, and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes, and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination. Sure, if that happened. New people would stop being HIV positive. Fewer not none, actually, given how herd immunity and statistically uncertain personal immunity from vaccination works. The deaths from currently sick people would occur. Not necessarily, provided they immediately stopped abusing drugs, taking AIDS drugs, made lifestyle changes, etc. Time will tell. Yep. It's how science works. Immature science includes discussion of concensus because concensus gives the best guess in the absence of cetainty. No, in my opinion, it doesn't. The Scientific Method provides the best guess." There would be no HIV=AIDS is scientists followed the scientific method. Anyway, those are my opinions, and I'm sticking to 'em. -- 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:14:06 -0400, Dogman wrote:
[...] No, in my opinion, it doesn't. The Scientific Method provides the best guess." There would be no HIV=AIDS is scientists followed the scientific method. PS: Nor would there be a "vaccine" for cervical cancer (Gardasil), or people who think prions exist on the basis of ZERO evidence, ditto Hep C, catastrophic "global warming" caused by CO2 (what comes out of our mouths when we breathe, and which plants depend on for life), etc. We have yet to exit the Dark Ages of Science. -- 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Aug 2, 4:33*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on. The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing suicide), Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. *Just like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed. It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept the most basic proven facts. "People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it possible to make HIV kill its host cell. Continuing to lie doesn't make it true.... ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2010) — Researchers appear to have an explanation for a longstanding question in HIV biology: how it is that the virus kills so many CD4 T cells, despite the fact that most of them appear to be "bystander" cells that are themselves not productively infected. That loss of CD4 T cells marks the progression from HIV infection to full-blown AIDS, The HIV virus apparently does invade those T cells, but the cells somehow block virus replication. It is the byproducts of that aborted infection that trigger an immune response that is ultimately responsible for killing those cells" And note that this article from 2010 doesn't say there was any doubt as to the fact that HIV kills CD4 cells, only that the exact mechanism wasn't understood. Now, apparently it is. OF course that won't be good enough for you either. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Truth is you're a liar. Who should we believe, Robert Gallo and Montagnier, or you? Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed, and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes, and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination. Still waiting for the study that shows AIDS is caused by drugs. And I'm still waiting for the study that proves that HIV causes AIDS. yawn I've given you links to study after study that proves exactly that. Proof that is satisfactory to 99.99% of the real AIDS researchers. Possibly even 100%, because clowns like Duesburg are not actual AIDS/HIV researchers. On the other hand, YOU have no studies that support any of your lies. And note that a 30 year old paper, back when AIDS was first gaining notice, speculating that recreational drug use might be involved, isn't a study. Actually now from research and real science we know that the real link is that IV DRUG USE is a factor in AIDS. Because one way the HIV virus is transmitted is via blood. So, it's that path, not the drugs themselves that account for AIDS in IV drug users. Interesting thing that. It explains how not only IV drug abusers can get AIDS, but also hemophiliacs like Ryan White and recipients of blood transfusions prior to blood being screened, like Arthur Ashe. Your denialist nonsense requires either a conoluted, nonsensical explanation or to simply claim that all these other people don't have AIDS. Not only lies, but offensive as well. The fact that HIV causes AIDS is entirely consistent with and explains the transmission of AIDS in: gay men with many partners because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc. Oh, really? So now AIDS can be acquired not by abusing drugs yourself, but simply by being gay and having a partner who is a drug abuser? A good example of the convoluted lies denialists have to come up with. The truth and obvious explanation is that if the partner is infected with HIV, then HIV can be passed through unprotected sex. See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc., See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and HIV exist on every continent, in every country. Were they all at the Stonewall riots too? Was Kimberly Bergalis, who got infected with HIV from her dentist? The baby born to an HIV infected mother? The bigotry and ignorance here are evident. IV drug users HIV is not necessary. hemophiliacs like Ryan White have taken impure Factor for years, causing their immune systems' destruction Another lie. Studies have been done that looked specifically at that issue. They looked at hemophiliacs that received impure factor. Those that were HIV+ had a high incidence of AIDS and death. Those that were HIV- had no AIDS and had mortality many times the rate of the HIV- group. See, this is why you're like a holocaust denier. You just keep slinging up stuff, as if it's never been studied. It has and it completely refutes your crap. It's like having pictures of Auschwitz, yet you and clowns like Duesberg, drone on. blood transfusion recipients like Arthur Ashe people get *antibodies* from blood transfusions prostitutes only if they abuse drugs soccer moms with a partner who is HIV+ false positives, liars, etc. Again this is what is offensive. The rest of us see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that she didn't know had HIV. It's tragic, but we know how it happens. You denialists have to call her a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute. Anything at all to try to keep your BS going. Have you no shame or conscience? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Aug 2, 8:14*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:24:39 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. Just like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed. It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept the most basic proven facts. "People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it possible to make HIV kill its host cell. Continuing to lie doesn't make it true.... Continuing to lie may not make it "true," but as Hitler once said: the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." And asGoebbels wrote: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Yes, those are your tactics exactly. Claiming for example that lack of sleep causes AIDS. Be And that's exactly what many "scientists" rely on. Useful idiots like yourself. You can (well, maybe not you, but intelligent people can) see this axiom at work every single day, expecially in the fields of virology and climatology. [...] The HIV virus apparently does invade those T cells, but the cells somehow block virus replication.It is the byproducts of that aborted infection that trigger an immune response that is ultimately responsible for killing those cells" That's known in scientific circles as psychobabble. *Akin to your "mysterious effect" *regarding bariatric surgery, etc. Gobbledygook! Of course just like all denialists you reject all sound AIDS/HIV research by world class AIDS researchers because it exposes your lies like "lack of sleep causes AIDS". Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Truth is you're a liar. Truth is you're a lying asshole, with the IQ of a fence post. Who should we believe, Robert Gallo and Montagnier, or you? That's like saying, who should we believe, all the other scientists, or Galileo? I'm going with Galileo. See, here is the essential difference. Galileo had PROOF for what he was claiming. What he was claiming was supported by DATA. What he claimed could be confirmed by simple studies. Now, where exactly is your data? I've asked 50 times now for a study. Crickets...... Find the one that shows AIDS is caused by sleep or too much sex. Besides, Gallo has been convicted twice of scientific misconduct and fraud, and Montagnier says that HIV, by itself, can't cause AIDS. The above is yet another lie. Gallo was never convicted of anything, nor was he even charged. He was accused of misrepresenting the use that he made of viral material sent to him by Montagnier. The issue was heard by a govt scientific review panel, not a court. They decided that Gallo had made a misrepresentation. A year later it was appealed and the appeal found Gallo had not committed any misconduct. That was the end of the issue. And as always, I have the references to back it up, in this case the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/26/ma...ted=all&src=pm Method and Madness; The Vindication of Robert Gallo By Nicholas Wade Published: December 26, 1993 "As a Government appeals board concluded last month: "One might anticipate that from all this evidence, after all the sound and fury, there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. That is not the case." Now as to Montagnier, lets look at the clearest thing in evidence as to his position on what the cause of AIDS is. Celia Farber wrote a denialist article for Harper magazine in 2006, making many of the same arguments that you and the rest of the denialists make. It was promptly taken apart by scientists one after the other as being factually incorrect, biased and flat out wrong. Letter after letter poured in to Harpers denouncing it and questining why Harpers did not even do a decent fact check on it. One of those letters was a joint letter signed by Gallo and Montagnier, the co-discoverers of HIV. Here is what they said in that letter: http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/harpers-farber#a16 "Indeed, both of us have contributed to the identification of such factors but this does not put into question that HIV alone is the cause of AIDS. We hope to dispel another point of confusion. It is said that some AIDS patients are HIV negative (an argument made by those who deny the role of HIV in AIDS). This is not the case. First, false negative results are extremely rare nowadays when trained personnel carry out modern diagnostic assays in properly equipped laboratories. Second, there are other causes of severe immune deficiency, such as extreme radiation exposure and rare genetic diseases, just like a severe sore throat can be caused not only by streptococcus, pneumonia not only by pneumococcus, and lung cancer not only by smoking. However, the appearance of a new immune deficiency, AIDS, on an unprecedented, pandemic scale was caused by the spread of HIV within the human population." So, if you want to hang your hat on those two guys... You were hanging yours on Montagnier, using a video where a denialist journalist baits him along, in English, which isn't his native language. But there is absolutely no doubt about his position in the above letter. Montagnier leaves no wiggle room. He says HIV ALONE IS THE CAUSE OF AIDS. Read it and stop lying. because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc. Oh, really? *So now AIDS can be acquired not by abusing drugs yourself, but simply by being gay and having a partner who is a drug abuser? Yes. Through anal sex, the exchange of bodily fluids (including blood), etc. Well, if it's not HIV that's causing AIDS, that's one hell of an interesting concept. Tell us more? Through what agent then does this occur? This is about as bizarre as bizarre gets. But it's not AIDS that is acquired, it's ANTIBODIES to HIV. Then AIDS, Inc. kills them both with AIDS drugs. More slowly, these days, but still ever so surely. Sure, how dumb would one have to be to believe that? We had the AIDS patients in the first few years dying one after the other, despite the fact that THERE WERE NO AIDS drugs. We have your denialist friends today refusing to take any AIDS drugs and they are mostly dying at 30. We have people in third world countries who have no access to AIDS drugs dying. We saw what happened in South Africa under Mbeki when that country refused to provide AIDS drugs to patients. They died. Unbelievable and again actually worse than the lies of holocaust deniers because it will kill people today who follow these lies. See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc., See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and HIV exist on every continent, in every country. What? *We're the only country that has homosexuals? The only country that abuses drugs? Anyone except a bigot knows that tens of millions of people of various backgrounds have died from AIDS. And only a bigot would try to somehow link it to gay liberation. Again this is what is offensive. *The rest of us see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that she didn't know had HIV. * It's tragic, but we know how it happens. Yes, it is tragic, because now they are going to start giving her AIDS drugs, which will KILL her. And it's all unnecessary! You denialists have to call her a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute. What? *People who test positive for HIV don't lie? *Just the rest of us can be liars, right? Is that yet another "mysterious" effect of HIV? *It makes you tell the truth? Some of them might, sure. But denialists like you need to make all of them out as liars in a desperate attempt to explain AIDS absent the truth that it's caused by HIV. And that makes you worse than a holocaust denier and an obvious bigot. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Continuing to lie may not make it "true," but as Hitler once said: the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." And asGoebbels wrote: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Yes, those are your tactics exactly. Claiming for example that lack of sleep causes AIDS. But a lack of sleep *can* contribute to a compromised immune system! http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders...-lack-of-sleep Really, have you never even taken one biology class? And when combined with other things that compromise the immune system (abusing drugs, drinking heavily, burning th e candle at both ends, etc.), you're just asking for trouble. BIG trouble! The HIV virus apparently does invade those T cells, but the cells somehow block virus replication.It is the byproducts of that aborted infection that trigger an immune response that is ultimately responsible for killing those cells" That's known in scientific circles as psychobabble. *Akin to your "mysterious effect" *regarding bariatric surgery, etc. Gobbledygook! Of course just like all denialists you reject all sound AIDS/HIV research by world class AIDS researchers because it exposes your lies like "lack of sleep causes AIDS". When you see terms like "somehow blocks virus replication," you should run like hell. It means the person doesn't know what he's talking about. Again, retroviruses depend on keeping the cell alive for their own survival. To kill the cell is to commit suicide. Moron. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Truth is you're a liar. Truth is you're a lying asshole, with the IQ of a fence post. Who should we believe, Robert Gallo and Montagnier, or you? That's like saying, who should we believe, all the other scientists, or Galileo? I'm going with Galileo. See, here is the essential difference. Galileo had PROOF for what he was claiming. No more than Duesberg, et al. Besides, Gallo has been convicted twice of scientific misconduct and fraud, and Montagnier says that HIV, by itself, can't cause AIDS. The above is yet another lie. Gallo was never convicted of anything, nor was he even charged. I didn't mean criminally. http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jcgallocase.htm Now as to Montagnier, lets look at the clearest thing in evidence as to his position on what the cause of AIDS is. His own words aren't good enough for you, right? That figures. So, if you want to hang your hat on those two guys... You were hanging yours on Montagnier, I wasn't hanging any hats; I was simply repeating his own words. because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc. Oh, really? *So now AIDS can be acquired not by abusing drugs yourself, but simply by being gay and having a partner who is a drug abuser? Yes. Through anal sex, the exchange of bodily fluids (including blood), etc. Well, if it's not HIV that's causing AIDS, that's one hell of an interesting concept. Tell us more? I can keep teliing you, but it wouldn't do any good, because you're too dumb to understand what *antibodies* are. With antibodies to HIV come AIDS drugs. With AIDS drugs comes AIDS, and then death. And with the exchange of bodily fluids, comes antibodies. Antibodies to HIV, for example. Now take some time, have a glass of wine, turn the TV off, and see if you can figure out how this happens. But it's not AIDS that is acquired, it's ANTIBODIES to HIV. Then AIDS, Inc. kills them both with AIDS drugs. More slowly, these days, but still ever so surely. Sure, how dumb would one have to be to believe that? Actually, only "dumb" enough to observe and understand what's happening right before your own eyes. We had the AIDS patients in the first few years dying one after the other, despite the fact that THERE WERE NO AIDS drugs. Correct. But they were all drug-abusing gay men, who had been burning the candle at both ends for years. They had destroyed their immune systems with drugs and lifestyle, No AIDS drugs were needed. That's why AIDS was originally called GRID. Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. We have your denialist friends today refusing to take any AIDS drugs and they are mostly dying at 30. No, they are mostly living and thriving. The ones who are dying are the ones who take AIDS drugs. We have people in third world countries who have no access to AIDS drugs dying. Yes, the same people who have no access to nutritional food, clean water, practice poor hygiene, etc. And they die from the very same diseases they've always died from, malaria, TB, wasting, slim disease, etc. But they call it "AIDS" today, because that's where the $$$ is. See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc., See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and HIV exist on every continent, in every country. What? *We're the only country that has homosexuals? The only country that abuses drugs? Anyone except a bigot knows that tens of millions of people of various backgrounds have died from AIDS. Yes, "AIDS by prescripion," from taking AIDS drugs. And only a bigot would try to somehow link it to gay liberation. Again, that's where it all started in THIS COUNTRY. Africa is a different situation altogether. And I've previously explained why. Again this is what is offensive. *The rest of us see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that she didn't know had HIV. * It's tragic, but we know how it happens. Yes, it is tragic, because now they are going to start giving her AIDS drugs, which will KILL her. And it's all unnecessary! You denialists have to call her a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute. What? *People who test positive for HIV don't lie? *Just the rest of us can be liars, right? Is that yet another "mysterious" effect of HIV? *It makes you tell the truth? Some of them might, sure. How many does it take? Sheesh. Moron. -- 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's
On Aug 3, 12:20*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Continuing to lie may not make it "true," but as Hitler once said: the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." And asGoebbels wrote: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Yes, those are your tactics exactly. *Claiming for example that lack of sleep causes AIDS. But a lack of sleep *can* contribute to a compromised immune system! http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders...ss-10/immune-s... Really, have you never even taken one biology class? Really, do you ever stay on topic or come up with an actual study that supports what you claim? Did I ever say that lack of sleep can't contribute to a lowered immune system? OF course not. In fact I acknowledged that many posts ago. But that isn't what you're claiming. What you and the denialist kooks are claiming is: lack of sleep can wipe out your immune system totally, leaving you open to the opportunistic infections that characterize AIDS. Study please..... even after proper sleep is restored, the immune system remains wiped out, patients acquire opportunistic infections and typically die. Study please. lack of sleep can produce the near zero levels of CD4 cells seen in AIDS patients. Study please.... and a study explaining why the above sleep phenomena is only seen in people who are HIV+ would be nice too.... Study please.... Of course there are no studies because it's a big lie. That's like saying, who should we believe, all the other scientists, or Galileo? I'm going with Galileo. See, here is the essential difference. Galileo had PROOF for what he was claiming. No more than Duesberg, et al. Another lie. Duesburg has no studies, no facts, nothing new just old theories that no studies support. Galileo proved his claims with a telescope. Besides, Gallo has been convicted twice of scientific misconduct and fraud, and Montagnier says that HIV, by itself, can't cause AIDS. The above is yet another lie. *Gallo was never convicted of anything, nor was he even charged. I didn't mean criminally. But that is what convicted means liar. Yeah, you better backpeddle on that one, for obvious reasons, eh? You were hanging yours on Montagnier, I wasn't hanging any hats; I was simply repeating his own words. No, I gave you Montagnier's words when he clearly denounced an AIDS denialist propaganda piece publicly in 2006. Here, in his own words: "Indeed, both of us have contributed to the identification of such factors but this does not put into question that HIV alone is the cause of AIDS. We hope to dispel another point of confusion. It is said that some AIDS patients are HIV negative (an argument made by those who deny the role of HIV in AIDS). This is not the case. First, false negative results are extremely rare nowadays when trained personnel carry out modern diagnostic assays in properly equipped laboratories. Second, there are other causes of severe immune deficiency, such as extreme radiation exposure and rare genetic diseases, just like a severe sore throat can be caused not only by streptococcus, pneumonia not only by pneumococcus, and lung cancer not only by smoking. However, the appearance of a new immune deficiency, AIDS, on an unprecedented, pandemic scale was caused by the spread of HIV within the human population." We had the AIDS patients in the first few years dying one after the other, despite the fact that THERE WERE NO AIDS drugs. Correct. *But they were all drug-abusing gay men, who had been burning the candle at both ends for years. They had destroyed their immune systems with drugs and lifestyle, *No AIDS drugs were needed. Sure. We have a disease with very, very specific characteristics. We know it manifests itself in the total destruction of CD4 cells. No, on the one hand we have direct evidence that destruction is caused by HIV, which 99.99% of the scientific researchers working on AIDS agree with. On the other hand we have the denialist nuts like you that claim: In the first few years of the disease, that very specific effect on the CD4 cells was produced by drugs and too much sex. Then somehow, the exact same thing was subsequently caused by AIDS drugs. Then somehow it was caused by impure clotting factor in hemophiliacs, despite the fact that identical hemophiliacs who are HIV- never get AIDS. Then in blood transfusion patients, well they all just died of something else. But only the ones who were HIV+ died. And in Africa, the exact same thing is being produced today by malnutrition. That despite the fact that middle class people are being wiped out by AIDS in Africa too. Now only a total fool or a bigot with an agenda would believe that. That's why AIDS was originally called GRID. Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. We have your denialist friends today refusing to take any AIDS drugs and they are mostly dying at 30. No, they are mostly living and thriving. I think not. Here's a list of a few dozen prominent dead ones. Funny thing that. Gee, what do they have in common? Took AIDS drugs? No. Gay? No. Starving Africans? No. The only thing they have in common is they are infected with HIV. http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc., See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and HIV exist on every continent, in every country. What? We're the only country that has homosexuals? The only country that abuses drugs? Anyone except a bigot knows that tens of millions of people of various backgrounds have died from AIDS. Yes, "AIDS by prescripion," from taking AIDS drugs. Bigot And only a bigot would try to somehow link it to gay liberation. Again, that's where it all started in THIS COUNTRY. Bigot Africa is a different situation altogether. *And I've previously explained why. Yes, because like all denialists you have to come up with and change the explanation for AIDS because your crap theories make no sense. In the US it was being gay, until it was AIDS drugs, then it was impure clotting factor, then it was they just died of something else, then it was lack of sleep, then it was too much sex. In Africa it's poor nutrition and sanitation, which is another bigotted lie because the African middle class is being decimated by AIDS. Those people are not starving. Compare that BS with the simple concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS and it explains it in all the above groups. Now, go ahead, spin away with lies.... Again this is what is offensive. The rest of us see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that she didn't know had HIV. It's tragic, but we know how it happens. Yes, it is tragic, because now they are going to start giving her AIDS drugs, which will KILL her. And it's all unnecessary! You denialists have to call her a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute. What? People who test positive for HIV don't lie? Just the rest of us can be liars, right? Is that yet another "mysterious" effect of HIV? It makes you tell the truth? Some of them might, sure. How many does it take? In your case just one. Because you are the worst liar I've ever encountred. But it won't work here, not today. I'm gonna expose you for the lying bigot you are. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Effect of weight loss on the postprandial response to high-fat and high-carbohydrate meals in obese women. | Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 3rd, 2007 12:27 PM |
High-Carbohydrate Diet Can Increase Blood Pressure in Type 2 Patients | Roger Zoul | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | November 12th, 2005 03:12 AM |
High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Could Curb Alzheimer's | Irv Finkleman | General Discussion | 6 | October 23rd, 2005 03:55 PM |
High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Could Curb Alzheimer's | Irv Finkleman | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | October 23rd, 2005 03:55 PM |
High Fat, Low Carbo Diet Improves Alzheimer's Disease In Mice | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | October 18th, 2005 02:12 PM |